Dads question daughters' romance, get jailed under POCSO, courts acquit them for want of evidence

Men who had questioned the love affairs of their daughter and stepdaughter were falsely implicated in POCSO cases before the courts quashed the FIR and conviction in two recent, separate cases. In one case, the High Court, on August 14, set aside the conviction in a POCSO case registered in Pathanamthitta. Another, which draws striking similarity to the Pathanamthitta incident, was recently quashed by the Kattappana POCSO court in July.

HC Justice A Badharudeen acquitted the convict while considering his appeal against a POCSO conviction in 2023. He had been sentenced to 60 years of rigorous imprisonment on charges of sexual abuse of his stepdaughter. It was alleged that he abused her at their residence in Pathanamthitta from 2014 to 2018.

In the appeal petition, the counsel referred to the survivor's romantic association with a boy when she was studying in the Plus One/Plus Two course. The accused had taken screenshots of her chats with her boyfriend and forwarded them to her mother. He had linked his mobile phone with that of the stepdaughter, which enabled him to read and forward messages.

The survivor admitted during the cross-examination that her love affair collapsed after her mother was shown the chats by her stepfather. Though she maintained that she didn't bear any animosity towards him, the HC noted that the evidence given by her would show that she had a feeling of discontent for her stepfather after the break-up. The HC also observed that while the alleged molestation happened between 2014 and 2018, her explanation that she had no occasion to disclose the incidents during that period could not be believed.

The HC acknowledged the fact that a minor of tender age may not possess the courage to resist or may be reluctant to disclose incidents out of fear. However, she was found not to have revealed the incidents to her mother even when she was away from the accused for a prolonged period. According to the court, she not only failed to disclose the same to her mother, but also didn't show any signs of discomfort. The order noted that the survivor's inconsistent versions and failure to disclose the actual overt acts of sexual abuse before the Magistrate left the prosecution case with many doubts.

The court also observed that the accused and the survivor's mother had developed discord over their rights on property, and the possibility of false implication to wreak vengeance against the accused by his wife through her daughter cannot be ruled out, and it creates strong suspicion on the prosecution evidence. The court allowed the appeal and set the convict at liberty. He had been in jail for three years.

In a similar case, a man accused of sexually abusing his daughter was found not guilty by the Kattappana POCSO court. The prosecution case was that the accused subjected his daughter to repeated sexual assault when she was below 12 years of age. During questioning, the accused said his daughter was being lazy in her studies, and he had interfered and questioned her relationship with her boyfriend.

Advocate Joby George, who appeared for the accused, cited that the survivor and her lover bore hostility towards him, which led to a false POCSO case. It also emerged that when the accused was arrested and held in judicial custody, the daughter's lover reached his house again and he was taken into custody by the police.

The survivor's brother also recounted her relationship and the interventions by his father. The court noted that the defence's plea of false implication and the motive of the survivor and her boyfriend cannot be lightly brushed aside. The accused was found not guilty after finding that the evidence of the prosecution couldn't prove the charges.

Justice Badharudeen makes a crucial observation in his order. "One could notice that the provisions of the POCSO Act have been misused by a section of people to get illegal gains. False implication of innocent persons in POCSO Act offences is not uncommon in other circumstances and is not exhaustive. Therefore, the courts have a duty to look into the evidence in each and every case with an element of insight in mind, to ascertain whether there is any likelihood of false implication could be found from the evidence available, particularly when false implication is the prime contention raised by the accused to get acquittal".