Raj HC acquits former sarpanch in POCSO case, holds prosecution failed to prove minority, guilt beyond doubt

Jaipur / Jodhpur: The Rajasthan High Court has held that in a criminal trial involving serious charges under the Indian Penal Code and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, the prosecution is under a strict legal obligation to prove every foundational fact beyond reasonable doubt, including the age of the prosecutrix and the credibility of the prosecution narrative. The court reiterated that where two views are possible on the evidence on record, the view favourable to the accused must prevail, and conviction cannot be sustained on conjectures or suspicion.

The Division Bench comprising Justice Vinit Kumar Mathur and Justice Chandra Shekhar Sharma held that suppression of the best available evidence, material contradictions in prosecution testimony, unexplained delay in lodging the FIR, and serious investigative lapses cumulatively vitiate the prosecution case. The court further held that failure to establish the minority of the prosecutrix beyond reasonable doubt is fatal to a conviction under the POCSO Act.

These observations were made while allowing a criminal appeal filed by Lajendra Singh @ Lali, assailing the judgment dated December 2, 2020 passed by the Sessions Judge, POCSO Act Cases No.1, Sri Ganganagar, by which the appellant had been convicted under Sections 376(2)(n) IPC and Sections 5(l)/6 of the POCSO Act and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life with fine.

The prosecution case, as recorded in the judgment, was that on May 9, 2016, the accused allegedly took the prosecutrix, aged about 17 years, from Sri Ganganagar to Sikar on the pretext of arranging a passport and sending her abroad, and during the journey and subsequent stay subjected her to repeated sexual assault. A written report was lodged on May 12, 2016 by the mother of the prosecutrix, leading to registration of FIR No. 96/2016 at Mahila Police Station, Sri Ganganagar.

During trial, the prosecution examined 20 witnesses and relied on documentary evidence. The accused denied the allegations, pleaded false implication on account of political rivalry, and led defence evidence including hotel records and witness testimony to establish his independent presence at Sikar with his brother and absence of the prosecutrix from his company.

Upon reappraisal of the evidence, the High Court recorded that both the father and mother of the prosecutrix admitted that she was first admitted to a school at 1-B Bavriyo Ki Dhani, but the admission record of that school, which constituted the earliest and best evidence of age, was never produced. Both investigating officers admitted that no inquiry was made from the first school and no documents were collected. The court held that reliance solely on the Secondary Board mark-sheet, in the face of contradictory government documents admittedly prepared at the instance of the prosecutrix herself, was insufficient, and suppression of the first school record warranted an adverse inference against the prosecution.

The court further found that the prosecution story regarding inducement on the pretext of sending the prosecutrix abroad was rendered doubtful by the admitted fact that the prosecutrix, her father and mother neither knew nor had ever seen the accused’s daughter, who was alleged to be residing in Canada. The court also took note of the delay in lodging the FIR despite the prosecutrix being with her parents for a full day, and recorded that the explanation offered was inconsistent with the testimony on record.

The High Court further noted that the daily diary entries showed that the accused had been detained prior to registration of the FIR, that the earliest disclosure witnesses were not examined, and that no CCTV footage from the hotel or passport office—described as the best available evidence—was collected. The court also recorded that the hotel register relied upon by the prosecution did not contain the name of the accused, while defence evidence including the hotel register of Hotel Spark, Sikar, supported the accused’s version.

The court also referred to the medical evidence, which recorded absence of injuries and noted that the prosecutrix disclosed having engaged in sexual intercourse four weeks prior to medical examination, a fact not reflected in the FIR or earlier statements. The court held that while medical evidence is not conclusive by itself, in the present factual matrix it assumed significance and weakened the prosecution case.

After considering the entire material, the Division Bench held that the prosecution had failed to establish the minority of the prosecutrix and had not proved the allegations beyond reasonable doubt. The court found that the defence version was at least probable and that the accused was entitled to the benefit of doubt.

Accordingly, the High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence, and acquitted the appellant of all charges. The court directed the appellant to furnish bonds under Section 437A CrPC in terms of the judgment.

Case Title
Lajendra Singh @ Lali vs State of Rajasthan

Case Number
D.B. Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 187/2020

Court
High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Jodhpur

Bench
Justice Vinit Kumar Mathur
Justice Chandra Shekhar Sharma

Date of Judgment
February 4, 2026

Advocates
For the appellant: Mr. Vineet Jain, Senior Advocate with Mr. Praveen Vyas
For the State: Mr. Rajesh Bhati, Public Prosecutor; Mr. N.L. Joshi
For the complainant: Ms. Kirti Pareek