The Karnataka High Court has upheld the order of the trial court acquitting a father accused of sexually assaulting his minor daughter. The complaint was made by the wife of the accused.

A division bench of Justice Sreenivas Harish Kumar and Justice K S Hemalekha while dismissing the appeal filed by Suja Jones Mazurier who was the complainant in the case.

As per the complaint- wife, the accused Pascal Mazurier had committed sexual assault on their minor child in the month of April, 2010; and again in the last week of May, 2012 and on 13th June, 2012, at which time the child was 3 years and 10 months old.

However, on appreciation of evidence, the trial court acquitted the accused, holding that the case stemmed from a misunderstanding between husband and wife. Moreover, it held that she (complainant) had used the child as a means to prevent the accused from leaving the country, taking assistance of individuals connected to NGOs, including financial and other support.

The trial court held that she had begun collecting the evidence even before lodging the complaint. Thus, on a comprehensive assessment of the entire oral and documentary evidence, the court observed that the prosecution failed to establish the charges against the accused beyond a reasonable doubt and accordingly acquitted the accused.

Challenging the acquittal order, the complaint wife, contended that given that the initial suspect was her husband- the victim’s father, it was quite natural for the complainant to act cautiously. Her decision to take necessary steps, rather than immediately approaching the police, was a reasonable step to clarify her doubts, not a sign of malice or fabrication. Further medical evidence was not properly appreciated.

The accused opposed the appeal, submitting that the prosecution relies upon the testimony of PW.4, the sole direct witness. The relationship between the accused and PW.4 was not cordial. The accused was on the verge of breaking his marriage with PW.4 and in that context, the evidence of PW.4 has to be considered and corroborated by the evidence of other witnesses.

Further, it was said that the first information report was false and motivated by ongoing marital discord, particularly related to child custody and control. It was added that there is an inordinate and unexplained delay in giving first information since the alleged offence, according to PW.4 was committed in the year 2010 and the first information was lodged in June 2012.

Finally, it was said that the statement of Geeta (househelp), though recorded, was not examined, and it gives rise to a significant omission which totally demolishes the prosecution’s case about the occurrence of the incident as alleged on 13.06.2012. Thus, it was said that the trial court has rightly appreciated the inconsistencies, delay and lack of corroboration, and the acquittal was based on sound reasoning.

Upon going through the evidence, the court noted that the wife of the accused and mother of the victim is ‘a star witness’ apart from the testimony of the victim-PW.23 (victim). The prosecution’s case largely rests on the sole testimony of PW.4 and PW.23.

It emphasised that courts have consistently held that a conviction can be based on the sole testimony of the ‘star witness’, provided that it is credible, consistent and trustworthy.

The bench on going through the evidence of the wife said “Though reaching out to NGO first can indicate genuine distress or lack of access to immediate help especially in domestic violence cases. However, this coordination shows a pre-litigation consultative process by PW.4 involving legal and medical professionals via NGOs. While such steps may be consistent with concern for child welfare, the sequence involving repeated consultation, delayed police reporting, and referrals largely controlled by NGO-linked personnel suggests a well orchestrated build-up rather than immediate, reactive reporting thus raising doubt about spontaneity and credibility.”

The court also held “The fact that PW.4 met various NGOs, doctors and legal professionals before the alleged triggering incident on 13.06.2012 raises a serious question about the credibility of the report she filed on 14.06.2012. This timing suggests that she has been preparing to initiate legal action or build a case regardless of any specific incident on that day. The delayed complaint (from alleged incident in April 2010 to filing in June 2012) and the victim’s prior medical history of genital infection further raises a doubt about the credibility and timing of the allegation.”

It referred to the medical evidence of the victim presented by the independent doctors including Dr. Roshini P. Rao (PW.17), Dr. Madhuri Murali (PW.6), Dr. Nalini (PW.8) which stated that there were no clear signs of sexual abuse on the child, redness and scratch marks were observed, but are not conclusive evidence of sexual abuse.

Stating that the prosecution did not examine the maid, Geeta, the court said “Failure to produce Geeta, a crucial independent witness, casts a shadow on the prosecution’s intent and creates a material gap in evidence. This omission assumes greater importance in cases where the conviction is sought mainly on the testimony of an interested witness (PW.4). The prosecution has offered no explanation for its failure to examine Geeta.”

It observed that the evidence provided by the Investigating Officer gives an inclination to draw an inference that Geeta knew the truth, which the prosecution did not want to be brought on record.

Thus, the non-examination of the maid undermines the prosecution’s burden to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and supports the defence argument that the trial court rightly acquitted the accused for lack of corroborative and independent evidence, the court said.

Court refused to accept the evidence of the victim as her statements appeared to be inconsistent and lacking coherence. Importantly, it said, she admitted being coached by her mother (PW.4), with promises of chocolate and a picnic in exchange for giving certain answers in Court.

Case Title: Ms Suja Jones Mazurier AND State of Karnataka & ANR

Case No: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1050 OF 2017.