Minor cannot be prosecuted for perjury for false rape claim under POCSO Act: J&K High Court
Srinagar, Dec 25: A minor person (below the age of 18 years) cannot be punished for the offence of perjury for making a false rape claim or a false claim of sexual assault under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO Act), the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh recently held.
Justice Rajnesh Oswal explained that Section 22 (2) of the POCSO Act prohibits the punishment of a child for giving false information about a rape or sexual assault case.
This provision states that if a false complaint is made or false information is provided by a child, no punishment shall be imposed on such a child.
“A perusal of the Section 22(2) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act would reveal that if a false complaint has been made or false information has been provided by a child, no punishment shall be imposed upon such child,” the Court, therefore, held.
The Court was dealing with a case where a 17-year-old girl (name withheld) alleged that she was dragged into a jungle and sexually assaulted by the accused in 2020, when she was returning to her village.
A case was filed against the accused man under Sections 376 (rape) and 341 (wrongful restraint) of the Indian Penal Code, along with Section 4 (penetrative sexual assault) of the POCSO Act.
During the trial, the case against the accused fell apart as the prosecutrix (17-year-old complainant) and her parents did not support the prosecution’s case and were declared as hostile witnesses.
Notably, the prosecutrix stated thrice in her examination-in-chief (during the trial) that the accused slapped her thrice, but denied having been sexually assaulted by the accused.
Rather, she said that the police complaint was written by a person “sitting outside the police station” who advised her to “make certain additions” as the police would not arrest the accused for a “simple case of slapping.”
The accused was acquitted in 2021. However, the trial court refused to initiate any criminal action for perjury against the complainant or her parents for giving false information.
This was challenged by the government of Jammu and Kashmir before the High Court.
The High Court, however, dismissed the government’s appeal in view of Section 22 (2) of the POCSO Act.
“In the present case, the prosecutrix was admittedly 17 years of age, meaning thereby she was a minor child and because of this reason only the accused was prosecuted for commission of offence under Section 4 of POCSO Act. Once, the special Act prohibits the punishment of a child in respect of false information provided by a child, the child cannot be prosecuted for commission of offence of perjury,” the Court held in a December 22 judgment.
The Court further noted that the complainant stated during the cross-examination in trial that she was not aware about there being any offence of rape in the case.
“She was minor when her statement was got recorded by the Police and she has given the justification for making the statement before the Court in respect of slapping only because the person who had drafted her application for registration of FIR told her to make additions, as the Police could not arrest the accused in case of allegations of slapping only,” the High Court said.
The Court also noted that the complainant’s mother had merely narrated what her daughter had told her. Therefore, the mother could not be said to have given false information, the High Court reasoned.
The father did not make any statement during the investigation. Therefore, he could not be held liable since no occasion arose for him to make any contradictory statement, the High Court found.
“Otherwise also, in order to prosecute and punish a witness for offence of perjury, it must be established that the (false) statement was made by him deliberately and consciously … So far as the instant case is concerned, there is absolutely no other evidence on record which may establish the fact that the witnesses made false statements deliberately before the trial court contrary to the statements made during investigation before the learned Magistrate,” the High Court held.
Therefore, the appeal was dismissed by the High Court.–(Bar and Bench)
