A Special POCSO Court, Dehradun, acquitted two brothers charged under Sections 323, 354, 504, and 506 IPC and Sections 7/8 of the POCSO Act. Court found that the complaint had been filed by the accused persons’ real aunt (chachi) and that the criminal proceedings stemmed from a long-standing family property dispute.

According to the prosecution, on 18 June 2023, when the complainant was not at home, Danish allegedly entered her house by jumping over a wall and sexually assaulted her daughter aged 17 years, 11 months, and 23 days. It was alleged that he slapped her, issued threats, forcibly removed her undergarments, pulled down her pyjama, and touched her private parts.

It was further alleged that upon the complainant’s return, when she attempted to rescue her daughter, Danish threatened that if she approached the police, he would kill her husband and her daughter. It was also alleged that Danish called his brother Talib to the spot, who placed a knife on the complainant’s neck and threatened that if anyone disclosed the incident or took any action against his brother, the entire family would be killed.

The complainant further alleged that on 20 June 2023, at about 9:30 a.m., Danish abused her using filthy language, threatened to kill her, and threw bricks at her twice, due to which she narrowly escaped injury. On the basis of these allegations, an FIR was registered on 24 June 2023 against Danish and Talib.

During their examination u/s 313 CrPC, the accused persons denied the prosecution allegations in their entirety. Danish stated that he has been falsely implicated due to prior family enmity and a long-standing property dispute. He further stated that earlier also, the complainant had lodged a rape case against him and his father, and that she has repeatedly filed false cases by making baseless allegations.

During the trial, Court examined the victim, her parents, and several other witnesses. Court noted material contradictions and improvements in the prosecution story, as well as an unexplained delay in lodging the FIR.

Court attached significant importance to the testimony of victim’s father, who categorically stated on oath that there had been a long-standing property dispute between the families and that the present complaint was lodged under pressure arising from that dispute. He deposed that he was at home on the alleged date and no such incident had occurred.

The defence further argued that at the time of the alleged incident, Talib had a rod implanted in his leg and was using crutches to walk. Court examined the prosecution allegation that Talib had jumped over a wall to enter the house and found it to be inherently improbable.

Court further noted that there was no corroborative medical evidence, no recovery of any weapon, and no independent witness to support the prosecution version. Although CCTV cameras were installed at the entry gate of the complainant’s house, no footage was produced, which further weakened the prosecution case.

Relying on settled legal principles, Court reiterated that mere allegations, unsupported by trustworthy and consistent evidence, cannot form the basis of conviction, particularly in serious offences under POCSO Act. The hostility of material witnesses and admissions regarding the property dispute created grave doubt about the prosecution narrative.

Accordingly, Court acquitted the accused of all charges under IPC and POCSO Act, holding that the complaint appeared to be the result of a family property dispute.