Sushil Kumar Tiwari vs Hare Ram Sah 2025 INSC 1061 - POCSO - Ss. 223,464 CrPC -Principle Of Beyond Reasonable Doubt

POCSO Act - Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection) Act, 2015 - The determination of minority is essential to extend the protection of these legislations, however, as long as the age conclusively appears to be under 18 years, the special protections carved out in favour of children cannot be diluted by insisting upon a rigid determination of the age, that too when it was not even questioned at the right time. (Para 17) once the minority of the victim was beyond doubt, the special protection of POCSO Act ought not to have been diluted by raising a fictious doubt regarding the precise age of the victim. (Para 18)

Evidence - Natural variations, errors and inconsistencies are not to be elevated to the standard of a reasonable doubt or to hold that the prosecution has failed. There is nothing like perfect evidence in a Court and in fact, perfection is often suggestive of tutoring and manufacturing of evidence. The availability of evidence as well as the quality of evidence are not open to judgment on any pre-determined parameters. For, these aspects not only depend upon the quality of investigation but also upon the societal circumstances prevalent in the area of crime. They also depend upon the level of awareness, not only of the persons involved in the case but also of the members of the locality who often appear as witnesses. Therefore, the Courts must be alive to the state of affairs on the ground and in that backdrop, it must examine whether the inconsistencies and gaps have been properly explained or not. If so, such inconsistencies and gaps may not affect the case of the prosecution. However, if the prosecution fails to explain the inconsistencies in its case, an adverse inference may be drawn against it. (Para 22)

POCSO Act - Merely on account of non-availability of DNA analysis, the case of the prosecution cannot be discarded, especially because the purpose of identification has been fulfilled on the strength of other credible evidence. (Para 24)

Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Section 464 - Mere discovery of an error, irregularity or omission in the framing of charge does not ipso facto render the decision of the Court as invalid. In fact, even a case of non-framing of charge is not liable to be discarded on that ground alone. In order to vitiate the decision, what is necessary is the failure of justice as a result of such error or omission or irregularity. (Para 26)

Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Section 223- Mere irregular conduct of a joint or separate trial does not vitiate the trial as a whole and the proof of failure of justice is sine qua non for holding the trial as invalid- When a ground of nonjoinder or misjoinder of charges/trial is taken before an Appellate Court, the test to be applied is whether such non-joinder or misjoinder has resulted into a failure or miscarriage of justice and has prejudiced the accused. It is not enough for the Appellate Court to merely hold that the Trial Court ought to have tried certain persons jointly or separately in the facts and circumstances of the case. (Para 31-32) Mere noncompliance of the procedure contemplated under Section 223 does not ipso facto render the trial as invalid, and the same cannot form the basis of returning a finding of prejudice and failure of justice. (Para 35)

Criminal Trial - Principle Of Beyond Reasonable Doubt - A reasonable doubt is one that renders the version of the prosecution as improbable, and leads the Court to believe in the existence and probability of an alternate version of the facts. It is a serious doubt which must be backed by reason. The underlying foundation of the principle of beyond reasonable doubt is that no innocent should face punishment for a crime that he has not done. But a flipside of the same, of which we are conscious, is that at times, owing to a mis-application of this principle, actual culprits manage to find their way out of the clutches of law. Such misapplication of this principle, resulting into culprits walking free by taking benefit of doubt, is equally dangerous for the society. Every instance of acquittal of an actual culprit revolt against the sense of security of the society and acts as a blot on the criminal justice system. Therefore, not only should no innocent face punishment for something that he has not done, but equally, no culprit should manage an acquittal on the basis of unreasonable doubts and misapplication of procedure. (Para 36)