The Madras High Court set aside a father’s POCSO conviction, holding that the case arose from matrimonial disputes and a pending divorce. The court found the testimony exaggerated and concluded that the child was tutored, making the conviction unsustainable.
Mother Force Daughter For False POCSO Case: The Madras High Court has overturned the conviction of a father who was earlier found guilty under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act for allegedly sexually assaulting his minor daughter.
Justice Sunder Mohan, after closely examining the evidence, held that the prosecution case was driven by matrimonial disputes and vengeance during pending divorce proceedings, and that the testimony of key witnesses was exaggerated and unreliable.
The court observed that the statements of the victim, the mother and the grandmother were not independent or natural. According to the judgment, the versions given by these witnesses appeared rehearsed and motivated.
The court recorded:
“All the above facts suggest that the versions of the witnesses PW1 to PW3 are exaggerated, attended with malafides and made only to wreak vengeance. Unfortunately, the victim girl has been tutored by her own mother to depose falsely. It appears that the matrimonial differences and the consequential assault said to have been made by the appellant on PW1 and the divorce petition have triggered this false prosecution. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the conviction cannot be sustained on the basis of the evidence adduced on the side of the prosecution and consequently, the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside.”
The appeal was filed by the father challenging his conviction and sentence passed by the POCSO Court, Puducherry. As per the prosecution, the father had inappropriately touched the child, forced her to touch him, exposed her to pornographic material and even watched her while she was changing clothes. The complaint was filed by the child’s mother. After trial, the special court convicted the father under Sections 10 and 12 of the POCSO Act and Section 323 of the IPC.
During the appeal hearing, the father argued that the complaint was filed with malafide intent and only after he initiated divorce proceedings. It was pointed out that even before the criminal complaint, the mother had filed a civil suit, but there was no mention of any sexual assault allegations in that suit. The defence also highlighted that no independent witnesses were examined apart from the victim, her mother and grandmother, and that the child was never subjected to any medical examination.
The prosecution countered that delay in filing the complaint should not weaken the case, claiming that the father repeatedly committed sexual assault. However, the court carefully examined the timeline and noted serious inconsistencies. The alleged first incident was said to have occurred when the child was four years old, the second when she was eight, and another after she attained puberty. Despite such serious allegations spanning nearly nine years, neither the mother nor the grandmother lodged any complaint during that period.
The court found it difficult to accept that for such a long duration, no action was taken if the allegations were true. It also observed that all three witnesses narrated the incidents in a parrot-like manner, raising doubts about spontaneity and truthfulness. Importantly, the court noted that the divorce petition was filed by the husband shortly before the criminal complaint, strengthening the inference that the prosecution was triggered by matrimonial conflict.
Another key factor was the child’s testimony. The court found it highly improbable that a 14-year-old could clearly recall alleged incidents from when she was four and eight years old, especially in the same detailed manner. This, according to the court, strongly indicated tutoring.
Justice Mohan remarked without hesitation:
“Unfortunately, the victim girl has been tutored by her own mother to depose falsely.”
By setting aside the conviction and acquitting the father, the court sent a clear message that criminal law, especially stringent laws like POCSO, cannot be misused as a weapon in marital disputes.
The judgment highlights how false or exaggerated allegations can destroy a man’s life, reputation and liberty when matrimonial conflicts spill into criminal courts. It also underlines the need for courts to carefully scrutinize evidence so that innocent fathers are not punished due to personal vendetta masked as child protection.
Explanatory Table: Laws & Sections Involved In This Case
| Law | Section | What the Section Deals With | How It Was Applied in This Case |
| Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 | Section 10 | Punishment for aggravated sexual assault | Trial court convicted the father under this section; High Court held evidence unreliable and set aside conviction |
| Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 | Section 12 | Punishment for sexual harassment of a child | Applied based on allegations of inappropriate conduct; conviction overturned due to lack of credible proof |
| Indian Penal Code, 1860 | Section 323 | Punishment for voluntarily causing hurt | Included by trial court; High Court found the prosecution story exaggerated and unsupported |
Case Details
- Court: Madras High Court
- Bench: Justice Sunder Mohan
- Case Title: Xyz vs The State of Tamil Nadu
- Case Number: CRL A No. 315 of 2023
Counsels
- For the Petitioner (Father): Ms. K. Suriya Prabha & Mr. R. V. Pradeep
- For the Respondent (State): Mr. K. S. Mohandoss Public Prosecutor, Puducherry
Key Takeaways
- POCSO cannot be used as a pressure tool in divorce disputes; courts will examine motive and timing.
- Tutored or rehearsed child testimony, without medical or independent evidence, cannot sustain conviction.
- Delay of years in reporting serious allegations seriously weakens prosecution credibility.
- Men are vulnerable to false criminal cases when matrimonial conflicts escalate into criminal litigation.
- Strict scrutiny of evidence is essential to protect innocent fathers from irreversible legal and social damage.
This Could Change Your Case-Get FREE Legal Advice-Click Here!
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the Indian courts and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of “ShoneeKapoor.com” or its affiliates. This article is intended for informational and educational purposes only. The content provided is not legal advice, and viewers should not act upon this information without seeking professional counsel. Viewer discretion is advised.