Archive · 19 Aug 2026
Kerala High Court Quashes POCSO Conviction, Citing Serious Doubts
The Kerala High Court reviewed a case involving a man accused of abusing his stepchild.
A trial court had found him guilty and given him a long prison sentence.
The high court found problems and gaps in the evidence.
The reported dates of the alleged incidents were not consistent.
The court also noted that the allegations were not reported during a period when the child was with her mother in Kuwait.
Medical evidence showed signs that could fit sexual assault, but it did not prove who was responsible.
The court said the evidence did not prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
It cancelled the conviction and ordered the man to be released.
The Kerala High Court overturned a stepfather’s conviction in a POCSO case, citing serious doubts in the prosecution evidence.
The man had received 40 years’ imprisonment and a ₹1 lakh fine under one aggravated-assault provision, plus 20 years and another ₹1 lakh fine under a second provision.
The alleged assaults were said to have occurred between 2014 and 2018, while the complaint was filed on January 13, 2020, after the complainant turned 18.
The court noted inconsistencies about the alleged time period, the absence of specific dates, and the complainant’s failure to disclose the allegations during a 2019 stay in Kuwait.
The court said medical findings could indicate sexual assault but could not alone establish that the accused was responsible, and ordered his release.
- Who
- The Kerala High Court, Justice A Badharudeen, and a man convicted of sexually assaulting his stepchild were involved; the prosecution’s principal witness was the child.
- What
- The high court quashed the man’s POCSO conviction and sentence after finding serious doubts and inconsistencies in the prosecution case.
- When
- The trial court convicted the man on October 18, 2023; the complaint was filed on January 13, 2020, and the high court issued its ruling on August 14.
- Where
- The alleged assaults were said to have occurred at the family residence; the child also stayed with her mother in Kuwait in 2019.
- Why
- The court found inconsistencies in the alleged dates, delayed disclosure, and other evidentiary concerns, and held that guilt was not proved beyond reasonable doubt.
High Court’s Concerns
Prosecution Allegations
Reliability of the case
High Court’s Concerns
The court said the prosecution evidence was riddled with serious doubts, including inconsistent accounts of when the alleged incidents occurred and the absence of specific dates.
Prosecution Allegations
The prosecution alleged that the stepfather repeatedly sexually assaulted the child between late 2014 and 2018 and secured a conviction in the trial court.
Significance of medical evidence
High Court’s Concerns
The court said the medical findings could be consistent with the history of sexual assault but could not by themselves identify the accused as the perpetrator.
Prosecution Allegations
The medical examination recorded findings consistent with the reported history of sexual assault, which formed part of the prosecution evidence.
Alleged misuse of POCSO
High Court’s Concerns
The court warned that POCSO allegations may be falsely used in matrimonial disputes to settle scores or influence custody and related litigation, and said courts must scrutinise each case carefully.
Prosecution Allegations
The prosecution case concerned alleged sexual assault within a domestic relationship; the high court’s ruling did not establish that all POCSO cases arising during matrimonial disputes are false.
- Court
- Kerala High Court
- Judge
- Justice A Badharudeen
- Complaint date
- January 13, 2020
- Alleged period
- Late 2014 to 2018, according to the prosecution; the examining doctor referred to 2015 to January 2019
- Trial sentence
- 40 years’ rigorous imprisonment and a ₹1 lakh fine under one provision, plus 20 years and another ₹1 lakh fine under a second provision
- Outcome
- Conviction and sentence set aside; the accused was ordered to be released
- Legal basis
- The court held that the prosecution evidence did not establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt