Pune: A 40-year-old casual worker accused of repeatedly raping his 14-year-old daughter was acquitted by a special Pocso court in the city on Monday, two years after the trial began, after the girl did not support the prosecution’s allegation of penetrative sexual assault during her testimony.The accused had been lodged in Yerawada Central Jail for the last two years during the course of the hearings.The girl had told the court that she had filed the complaint against her father after he, allegedly under the influence of liquor, quarrelled with her mother and assaulted her mother and brother. When questioned about the alleged sexual assault, she denied the allegation of penetrative sexual assault. The court recorded that even after the prosecution cross-examined her, nothing incriminating was brought on record against the accused.In the judgment, special judge DS Deshmukh noted that the defence had admitted the spot panchanama, clothes seizure panchanama, school leaving certificate of the girl and medical examination reports, and therefore those documents were proved. However, he held that “against the backdrop of the nature of testimony of victim and her mother”, the offences levelled against the accused were not established.Referring to Bombay high court’s judgment in the case of Navin Dhaniram Baraiye vs State of Maharashtra, the judge held that foundational facts had to be proved to attract presumptions under sections 29 and 30 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (Pocso) Act. He further held that the presumptions could not be drawn as foundational facts were not proved in the present case.The prosecution’s case was that the accused had committed the alleged offences against his daughter between April 2023 and May 28, 2024. A case was registered at Kondhwa police station on June 15, 2024, under sections bringing criminal charges of rape as well as the Pocso Act.During cross-examination by the defence, the girl admitted that she and some villagers had gone to the police station after her father, who she said was under the influence of liquor, had abused the latter. She also admitted that two signatures were obtained from her at the police station and that she had stated the facts before a magistrate “on the say of the police”. The court noted that her statement under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) also did not support the prosecution’s case.Public prosecutor CA Panashikar had also examined the girl’s mother. However, she did not state anything incriminating against the accused, the court found.
