Acquittal in POCSO cases not clean when complainant backtracks, witnesses turn hostile: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Wednesday held that an acquittal in a child sexual assault case cannot be said to be a clean one when the trial has seen witnesses turning hostile, and the complainant reneging on her allegations. [State of Madhya Pradesh and ors vs Bhupendra Yadav].A bench of Justices Hima Kohli and Rajesh Bindal made the observation while referring to an acquittal in a case under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO Act) offences where the survivor had failed to support the prosecution's case. "The respondent was acquitted by the trial Court primarily on account of the fact that the complainant did not support the case set up by the prosecution and the other prosecution witnesses had turned hostile. In such circumstances, the respondent’s plea that he had been given a clean acquittal in the criminal case, is found to be devoid of merits", the bench noted.The observations came while restoring a Madhya Pradesh High Court single-judge order that had upheld a State police decision not to appoint a POSCO-accused to the force. The State police had deemed the accused unfit for the appointment, even though he had been acquitted in the POCSO case filed against him. .The POCSO arose out of a 2015 incident, when the main accused (present respondent) and others were alleged to have wrongly confined the minor complainant and tried to outrage her modesty.During the course of the trial in this case, a compromise was entered into between the accused and the survivor, and the offence of wrongful restraint was compounded. The accused was later acquitted of the charges of sexual harassing and outraging the modesty of the minor, as the survivor did not hold on to her earlier testimonies, and the witnesses turned hostile.The accused man had later applied for a constable's job in the Madhya Pradesh police, where a Superintendent of Police, at the final stages of selection, deemed him unfit for appointment as the POSCO offences were offences of moral turpitude.A single judge of the High Court refused to interfere with the decision of the police, but a division bench allowed the man's appeal.The State government, in turn, challenged the division bench ruling before the apex court..The top court, at the outset, noted that though the accused had disclosed the POCSO complaint against him while applying for the police post, the judgment of the trial court in the matter cannot be treated as a clean acquittal.The Court also emphasised that the yardsticks for law enforcement aspirants has to be very strict when compared to other jobs. Once appointed to a law enforcement post, the appointee has a responsibility to maintain law and order and to protect the life and property of the public, the Court noted. As such, the moral standards or rectitude for such a candidate is always higher and more rigorous, the Court said. The possession of a higher moral conduct is one of the basic requirements for an appointment to a post as sensitive as that in the police service, the Court added..The bench, thus, held that mere acquittal of the accused in this case would not automatically entitle him to be declared fit for appointment to the constable post. Therefore, the Court concluded that the State government's decision was not malafide or arbitrary. "In such a case, even one criminal case faced by the respondent in which he was ultimately acquitted, apparently on the basis of being extended benefit of doubt, can make him unsuitable for appointment to the post of a Constable," the Court said. .The State government's appeal was, thus, allowed..Advocate Bharat Singh appeared for the Madhya Pradesh government. Advocate Savitri Pandey appeared for the accused, one Bhupendra Yadav..[Read judgment]