Supreme Court Acquits Appellant in POCSO Case Due to Inconsistent Evidence and Lack of Corroboration. Conviction under Section 6 of POCSO Act Set Aside as Prosecution Failed to Prove Sexual Assault Beyond Reasonable Doubt.

Admin

2026-05-18 11:43:09

Font size:

Case Note & Summary

The appellant, P. Yuvaprakash, was convicted by the trial court and the Madras High Court for offenses under Section 366A IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012. The prosecution alleged that on 13.01.2015, the appellant along with others kidnapped a 17-year-old girl (the victim) and later married her at a temple, after which he had repeated sexual intercourse with her. The victim's father lodged a complaint under Section 366A IPC. The appellant was acquitted under Section 366A IPC but convicted under Section 6 POCSO Act. The Supreme Court examined the evidence and found that the victim's testimony was inconsistent with the medical evidence, which showed no signs of recent sexual activity. Additionally, the other prosecution witnesses did not corroborate the victim's version. The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt and that the appellant was entitled to the benefit of doubt. The appeal was allowed, and the conviction and sentence were set aside.

Headnote

A) Criminal Law - POCSO Act - Aggravated Penetrative Sexual Assault - Section 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 - Conviction set aside due to inconsistent evidence and lack of corroboration - The prosecution's case relied on the victim's testimony which was inconsistent with medical evidence and other witnesses - Held that the benefit of doubt must be given to the appellant (Paras 1-10).

Issue of Consideration

Whether the conviction of the appellant under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012 is sustainable based on the evidence on record.

Final Decision

Appeal allowed. Conviction and sentence under Section 6 POCSO Act set aside. Appellant acquitted.

Law Points

Benefit of doubt
Inconsistent evidence
Lack of corroboration
Age of victim
Consent in POCSO

Case Details

2023 INSC 676

Criminal Appeal No. 1898 of 2023

2023-01-01

S. Ravindra Bhat

2023 INSC 676

P. Yuvaprakash

State Rep. by Inspector of Police

Nature of Litigation

Criminal appeal against conviction under POCSO Act

Remedy Sought

Appellant sought acquittal from conviction under Section 6 POCSO Act

Filing Reason

Appellant aggrieved by conviction affirmed by Madras High Court

Previous Decisions

Trial court convicted appellant under Section 366A IPC and Section 6 POCSO Act; High Court affirmed conviction under Section 6 POCSO Act but acquitted under Section 366A IPC

Issues

Whether the conviction under Section 6 POCSO Act is sustainable based on evidence

Submissions/Arguments

Appellant argued that evidence was inconsistent and lacked corroboration Prosecution relied on victim's testimony and medical evidence

Ratio Decidendi

Inconsistent evidence and lack of corroboration entitle the accused to benefit of doubt; prosecution must prove case beyond reasonable doubt.

Judgment Excerpts

The sole appellant is aggrieved by the conviction affirmed and the sentence imposed by the Madras High Court, rejecting his plea. He is acquitted of committing offense under Section 366 of the Indian Penal Code, but convicted under Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

Procedural History

Trial court convicted appellant under Section 366A IPC and Section 6 POCSO Act. Madras High Court affirmed conviction under Section 6 POCSO Act but acquitted under Section 366A IPC. Appellant appealed to Supreme Court.