The Punjab and Haryana High Court has delivered an important ruling in a case involving allegations of a sexual offence against a minor in Bathinda, Punjab. The court declined to interfere with the acquittal of the accused in the sexual offence case while upholding his one-year sentence for causing grievous hurt to the complainant.
The judgment was delivered by a division bench comprising Justice Vinod S. Bhardwaj and Justice Ravinder Malik. The court emphasised that even in cases involving serious allegations, the prosecution must establish the charges beyond a reasonable doubt.
Background of the Case
The case originated from an FIR registered at Maur police station in Bathinda district on July 30, 2016. The complainant, Lal Singh, alleged that his grandson, who was approximately 13 years old at the time, had been subjected to a sexual offence on July 27, 2016.
The complainant also alleged that he was assaulted after confronting the accused. The case subsequently proceeded through the criminal justice system, resulting in a trial court judgment in February 2019.
The trial court convicted the accused under Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code for causing grievous hurt and sentenced him to one year of rigorous imprisonment, along with a fine of ₹2,000. However, the accused was acquitted of the sexual offence allegations after receiving the benefit of doubt.
The complainant challenged the decision before the Punjab and Haryana High Court.
Why Did the High Court Uphold the Acquittal?
While examining the case, the High Court considered the medical evidence, forensic findings and inconsistencies in the prosecution’s account.
The doctor who examined the minor did not find redness, scratches or abnormal swelling in the relevant area. The medical examination also did not indicate signs of sexual assault or unnatural sexual intercourse.
The court further noted that the prosecution had not satisfactorily explained the sequence of events relating to the medical examination and police action.
The forensic report reportedly detected sperm in a sample, but the absence of DNA testing meant that the biological material could not be conclusively linked to the accused. The court also noted that the minor’s undergarments had not been seized for examination.
The bench clarified that DNA evidence is not mandatory in every sexual offence case. However, in the circumstances of this particular case, the available forensic evidence did not establish a direct link between the accused and the alleged offence.
School Attendance Records Also Examined
The High Court also considered discrepancies involving the minor’s school attendance records.
The attendance register recorded the child’s presence at school on July 27 and 28, 2016. These entries did not align with the account concerning the school being closed and the child playing cricket during the afternoon of the alleged incident.
After examining these inconsistencies alongside the medical and forensic evidence, the court concluded that the prosecution had failed to prove the sexual offence allegations beyond a reasonable doubt.
Consequently, the High Court declined to overturn the acquittal recorded by the trial court.
One-Year Sentence for Assault Remains Intact
Although the acquittal in the sexual offence case remained unchanged, the conviction for causing grievous hurt under Section 325 of the IPC was not set aside.
The accused’s one-year rigorous imprisonment sentence and the ₹2,000 fine imposed by the trial court therefore remained in place.
The ruling highlights the distinction between separate charges arising from the same incident. Each offence must be assessed on the evidence and legal requirements applicable to that charge.
Key Takeaway
The Punjab and Haryana High Court’s decision reinforces the principle that criminal convictions must be based on evidence sufficient to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The court did not find adequate grounds to overturn the acquittal in the sexual offence case, but it retained the punishment imposed for the assault.
The ruling concerns the specific facts and evidence of this case and should not be interpreted as establishing a general rule that medical findings or the absence of DNA evidence alone determine the outcome of sexual offence trials.
