The Supreme Court has set aside the conviction of Charming Rupon, who was tried under the POCSO Act for allegedly sexually assaulting a child with intellectual disability. It held that the prosecution’s case was too doubtful to sustain a conviction. A Bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta delivered the ruling in Charming Rupon v. State of Meghalaya.
Background
The case dates to May 2015 in East Jaintia Hills, Meghalaya. The prosecution said the girl, who has 40 per cent intellectual disability, was alone at home when the accused entered and assaulted her. The FIR was lodged on June 8, 2015, nearly ten days later, after the child spoke to her teacher. A Special POCSO court convicted him under Section 6 in December 2021 and sentenced him to ten years’ rigorous imprisonment with a Rs 1 lakh fine. The Meghalaya High Court dismissed his appeal in March 2022.
Re-examining the evidence, the Bench found the mother’s conduct unnatural. Her niece had told her about the incident the next morning, yet she neither examined her daughter nor approached the police, and the FIR did not mention this. Neither the victim nor her cousin could identify the accused in court, and both said his name came from the mother. The victim also admitted meeting the prosecutor, who told her what to say. Their accounts of his relationship with the family also differed.
The Court noted that the school teacher, whose disclosure led to the FIR, was never examined and that no explanation was given. It drew an adverse inference against the prosecution. It also rejected the State’s “last seen” argument under Section 106 of the Evidence Act, since the mother had only seen him plucking leaves in the garden, not with the child. The testimony of the two doctors could not be read in evidence because the defence had no effective chance to cross-examine them. The Bench found the alibi evidence credible and said the lower courts had brushed it aside too lightly.
Acknowledging that some latitude must be given to a mentally challenged victim, the Court summed up its view:
“Resultantly, the cumulative effect of unnatural conduct of victim’s mother (PW-1) coupled with the significant delay in lodging the FIR; failure of the victim (PW-4) and her cousin (PW-2) to identify the accused-appellant before the Court; contradictory versions regarding the relationship of the accused-appellant with the victim’s family; non-examination of the teacher Ms. Princely and; the defence evidence indicating that the accused-appellant had gone to another village in connection with a property transaction, creates serious doubt on the genuineness and credibility of the prosecution allegations. In our considered opinion, cumulatively taken, these circumstances are sufficient to persuade the Court that it would be wholly unsafe to sustain the conviction of the accused-appellant.”
The Court held that the prosecution had not proved guilt beyond reasonable doubt. It set aside the trial court and High Court judgments, acquitted the appellant giving him the benefit of doubt, and directed his release if not wanted in any other case.
