Madhya Pradesh High Court: Medical Evidence Trumps Hostile Victim in POCSO Case

• The Madhya Pradesh High Court denied regular bail to a man accused of raping a 15-year-old girl, despite the victim turning hostile during trial.
• Medical evidence can sustain the case even after the victim's testimony was discredited, according to the court.
• A prosecutrix turning hostile does not necessarily erase the weight of medical evidence supporting the prosecution's case, as per Supreme Court precedents.
• The accused was denied bail despite a negative DNA report and the victim's hostile testimony, emphasizing that these factors do not necessarily mean bail will be granted.

A prosecutrix turning hostile does not necessarily erase the weight of medical evidence supporting the prosecution's case, as per Supreme Court precedents.

The Madhya Pradesh High Court at Jabalpur has denied regular bail to a man accused of raping a 15-year-old girl, despite the victim turning hostile during trial. The court held that medical evidence can sustain the case even after the victim's testimony was discredited. This ruling highlights the importance of considering all available evidence in POCSO cases, rather than relying solely on witness statements. In this instance, the Medico-Legal Certificate (MLC) corroborated the allegation of sexual assault, despite a negative DNA report and the victim's hostile testimony. The court's decision emphasizes that a prosecutrix turning hostile does not necessarily erase the weight of medical evidence supporting the prosecution's case.

The POCSO Act provides a framework for dealing with cases involving children below 16 years of age. In this case, the victim was allegedly taken from her parental home by the accused, who then allegedly raped her. The prosecution relied on medical evidence to support their case, including the MLC report and DNA analysis. However, the accused argued that the negative DNA result and the victim's hostile testimony meant that bail should be granted. The court rejected this argument, citing Supreme Court precedents that emphasize the importance of considering all available evidence in POCSO cases. The order also noted that a prosecutrix turning hostile does not necessarily erase the weight of medical evidence supporting the prosecution's case.

This ruling has significant implications for lawyers handling POCSO cases. It highlights the importance of considering all available evidence, including medical reports and DNA analysis, rather than relying solely on witness statements. The court's decision also underscores the need to balance the presumption of innocence with the rights of the victim and societal interest in the rule of law. In this case, the accused was denied bail despite the victim's hostile testimony, emphasizing that a negative DNA report and a hostile witness do not necessarily mean bail will be granted. This ruling serves as a reminder for lawyers to carefully consider all available evidence when handling POCSO cases.

This ruling highlights the importance of medical evidence in POCSO cases, even if the victim turns hostile during trial. Lawyers should be aware that a negative DNA report and a hostile witness do not necessarily mean bail will be granted to an accused.

Source: Original reporting via Briefly