Bhubaneswar: A special POCSO court in Puri recently acquitted a man accused of raping a minor girl on the pretext of marriage after the prosecution failed to prove ‘aggravated penetrative sexual assault’ charges against him. While setting free the accused, 28, who is currently undergoing teacher’s training, Additional Sessions Judge Ramanath Panda observed that the sole evidence of the victim without corroboration is held to be unreliable due to want of corroboration. “I am of the considered opinion that the evidence adduced by the prosecution is not sufficient to bring the accused within the fold of the charges levelled against him under IPC Sections 341, 354, 323, 376(2)(n) and 560, as well as Section 6 of POCSO Act, 2012,” the judge said in his order adding, ”Accordingly I hold that the prosecution has failed to establish the charges levelled against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt.” Defence counsel Debadutta Kanungo said that the Astaranga police had arrested the accused October 6, 2016 on an FIR lodged by the victim, then 16, stating that the former intercepted her on a motorcycle when she was on her way to college in the morning hours.
He then forced her to ride pillion on the motorcycle, took her to a secluded place, and took some photographs with her on a cell phone, the victim said in the FIR. “She also alleged the accused manhandled her and told her that he would not keep any further relationship with her though he had been maintaining forcible sexual relation with her for the past year,” Kanungo said quoting the FIR. The police filed the chargesheet in the case November 22, 2016 and the trial commenced in February 2018.
In the meantime, the court granted bail to the accused a year after his arrest. “The trial went on for around 8 years. The judgment was pronounced September 12 this year” Kanungo said, adding, “a conviction cannot be held upon a disputed and unreliable foundational fact alleged by a POCSO case victim. This has been held by many high courts and the supreme court as well.” Meanwhile, while closing the case, the court allowed the complainant to appeal against the order within 90 days, Kanungo added.
