Overview
The Supreme Court of India decided the criminal appeal filed by Charming Rupon against the judgment of the High Court of Meghalaya dated 29 March 2022, which had upheld his conviction by the Special Judge (POCSO), East Jaintia Hills District, Khliehriat. The appellant had been convicted under Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act), and sentenced to ten years’ rigorous imprisonment with a fine of ₹1,00,000. The Supreme Court, in a judgment authored by Justice Sandeep Mehta, re-examined the prosecution evidence and found serious deficiencies concerning identification of the accused, the delay in lodging the FIR, the non-examination of a material witness, the opportunity to cross-examine medical witnesses, and the defence plea of alibi. It held that the prosecution had not proved the appellant’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Facts
Initiation of Prosecution: The prosecution alleged that on 28 May 2015, the appellant sexually assaulted the victim, an 11-year-old girl who had an intellectual disability, at her residence. The victim’s mother (PW-1) had left the house, leaving the child alone. The prosecution case was that the mother saw the appellant plucking mulberry leaves in the adjoining garden before leaving. The victim later went to the house of her cousin, Ms. J (PW-2), and allegedly disclosed the incident to her.
Investigation and Delay: According to the prosecution, PW-2 informed the victim’s mother on the following day. The mother did not immediately report the matter. The victim subsequently spoke about the incident to her schoolteacher, Ms. Princely, on 7 June 2015. The mother lodged the FIR on 8 June 2015, nearly ten days after the alleged incident. The victim was medically examined, and the investigation resulted in a charge-sheet under Section 6 of the POCSO Act.
Also Read – Free Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) MCQ Set 1
Lower Court Rulings: The Special Judge (POCSO) convicted the appellant on 7 December 2021 and sentenced him to ten years’ rigorous imprisonment and a fine of ₹1,00,000, with five months’ simple imprisonment in default of payment. The High Court of Meghalaya dismissed his appeal on 29 March 2022.
Appeal before Supreme Court: Being aggrieved by the concurrent judgments of the courts below, the appellant approached the Supreme Court by special leave (SLP (Crl.) No. 11881 of 2022).
Issues
1. Whether the prosecution had established beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant was the person who committed the alleged offence, particularly when PW-2 and PW-4 failed to identify him in court?
2. Whether the unexplained delay in lodging the FIR, material improvements and inconsistencies in the prosecution evidence, and non-examination of the schoolteacher affected the reliability of the prosecution case?
3. Whether the trial was fair when the defence was not given an effective opportunity to cross-examine the medical witnesses?
4. Whether the defence evidence supporting the appellant’s plea of alibi had been properly considered by the courts below?
Held
Failure to establish identity: The victim (PW-4) stated in cross-examination that she could not remember the offender’s face, that her mother had told her the accused’s name, and that the Special Public Prosecutor had told her what to say in court. PW-2 also failed to identify the appellant and clarified that the name had been supplied to her by PW-1. The Court considered these circumstances serious infirmities affecting identification.
Inconsistencies in the family relationship: PW-4 described the appellant as her father’s eldest brother, whereas PW-1 described his relationship with the family differently. The Court treated this inconsistency, together with the identification problems, as relevant to the reliability of the prosecution evidence.
Delay and omissions in the FIR: The FIR was lodged nearly ten days after the alleged incident. The Court noted that important facts later relied upon by the prosecution—including the claim that PW-1 had seen the appellant in the garden and that PW-2 had informed her the next morning—were not mentioned in the FIR. The Court regarded these omissions and subsequent improvements as significant.
Non-examination of a material witness: The schoolteacher, Ms. Princely, was said to have received the victim’s disclosure on 7 June 2015, which led to the FIR. The prosecution did not examine her and gave no explanation. The Court held that she was a material witness and drew an adverse inference in the circumstances of the case.
Medical evidence and fair opportunity to cross-examine: The Court found that the defence had not been given an effective opportunity to cross-examine the two medical witnesses (PW-3 and PW-8). Their testimony therefore could not be read in evidence against the appellant.
Plea of alibi: The appellant led oral and documentary defence evidence, including evidence from three other defence witnesses, to support his plea that he had gone to another village in connection with a property transaction. The Supreme Court found the defence evidence credible and held that the courts below had brushed it aside too lightly.
Section 106 of the Evidence Act: The Court rejected the argument that the burden had shifted to the appellant under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Merely seeing the appellant plucking mulberry leaves in a garden did not establish that he and the victim had been seen together. The alleged last-seen circumstance was also absent from the FIR.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court held that the cumulative effect of the evidentiary deficiencies created serious doubt about the prosecution case and that the appellant’s guilt had not been proved beyond reasonable doubt. It set aside the trial court’s judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 7 December 2021 and the High Court judgment dated 29 March 2022. The appellant was acquitted of the charges and directed to be released forthwith if he was not wanted in any other case. The appeal was accordingly allowed.
Legal Significance
This decision illustrates the importance of reliable identification evidence, careful scrutiny of material omissions and improvements in an FIR, and examination of witnesses who are essential to the prosecution story. It also reiterates that an accused must receive an effective opportunity to cross-examine prosecution witnesses, including medical witnesses. The prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; the burden cannot be shifted to the accused under Section 106 merely on the basis of an unsupported last-seen theory.
This article has been researched and prepared by Dhruv Kaurav, Legal Research Intern at LegalRath.
Join our WhatsApp Groups ( Click Here)and Telegram Channel ( Click Here) and get instant notifications