In a compelling and deeply reflective judgment, the Allahabad High Court acquitted a man who had spent over nine years behind bars under charges framed under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and provisions of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act. The Court's decision did not merely rest on the insufficiency of evidence against the accused, Ram Sanehi, but also served as a wider denunciation of the growing misuse of laws aimed at protecting women and children, particularly within family disputes involving property or personal rivalry.
Justice Subhash Vidyarthi, who authored the judgment, underscored a disturbing trend observed in recent years—where family members, in the midst of petty quarrels or property disputes, level serious and life-altering allegations such as rape or sexual assault against their own kin. In this case, the Court noted, the entire trajectory of prosecution seemed to stem not from a genuine pursuit of justice, but rather from an attempt to dispossess the accused of his property and personal freedom under the garb of legal process. The judgment carried not only the weight of law but also the emotional and human cost borne by an individual wrongfully incarcerated for nearly a decade.
The case revolved around Ram Sanehi, who was arrested in 2016 following allegations that he had raped a minor family member. Despite the gravity of the charges, the High Court found that the trial court had failed to scrutinize the evidence with the rigor required in such serious matters. The only witnesses brought forward were the girl and her parents. Although they claimed that neighbors had witnessed the aftermath and could confirm the presence of the accused, no neutral or independent witnesses were presented. The medical examination report, crucial in a case of this nature, revealed no physical injuries, further casting doubt on the prosecution's claims.
The Court was particularly critical of the manner in which the trial had been conducted. It pointed out that the trial court had convicted Ram Sanehi in 2020 based on inconsistent and contradictory testimonies and without adequately considering the medical and pathological reports that cast serious doubts on the allegations. The judgment emphasized that in cases involving such grave charges, especially when a family member is accused of sexually assaulting a minor relative, the evidence must be not only credible but overwhelmingly convincing. In this case, it was neither.
Justice Vidyarthi noted that not only was there a lack of direct or corroborative evidence, but also that the prosecution had failed to present any logical or compelling reason why the accused would commit such an act. There was no indication of prior misconduct, no behavioral evidence, and no circumstances that lent plausibility to the allegation. The overall lack of coherence in the prosecution’s case, coupled with the absence of medical confirmation, led the Court to conclude that the conviction had been handed down in error.
What made the judgment especially significant was its attention to the broader implications of such misuse of the law. The Court stated, in no uncertain terms, that laws designed to protect the vulnerable—such as the POCSO Act—should not become instruments of vendetta, particularly within the domestic space. When laws meant for social justice are used to settle scores, the ripple effect is not limited to the accused; it damages the credibility of the law itself and jeopardizes the interests of genuine victims.
The judgment also addressed the collateral harm suffered by Ram Sanehi. During his nine-year incarceration, the complainants, who were also his relatives, had taken possession of his house. The Court expressed its deep disapproval of this act, stating that an individual wrongly imprisoned should not be doubly punished by being deprived of his shelter and dignity. As a remedial measure, the Court directed the Superintendent of Police in Hardoi to ensure that Sanehi was reinstated in his home upon release and that no further harassment was allowed.
The Court exercised its inherent powers under the Constitution and the Code of Criminal Procedure to expedite the process of release and restitution. Recognizing the grave injustice suffered by the accused, it ordered his immediate release and extended protection against any retaliatory action by the complainants.
This ruling carries significant implications for both the judiciary and society. It is a timely reminder that while laws like the POCSO Act are essential for protecting the rights of children and preventing abuse, their misuse can not only lead to wrongful incarceration but can also dilute the seriousness with which genuine cases are treated. The judgment reaffirms that the judiciary has a solemn duty not only to punish the guilty but to protect the innocent from being crushed under the weight of falsehood.
By acquitting Ram Sanehi and calling out the misuse of powerful criminal statutes, the Allahabad High Court has sent a strong message: that justice must not only be done but must be based on facts, evidence, and fairness. It highlights the need for greater sensitivity and vigilance in handling such cases, particularly when familial relationships are at the heart of the allegations. The case also signals a broader legal and social responsibility to ensure that protective laws remain just that—protective—and are not co-opted as tools for personal gain or retribution.
In its conclusion, the Court not only overturned a wrongful conviction but also attempted to restore a sense of dignity and justice to a man whose life had been disrupted by false charges. The decision stands as a beacon for judicial fairness and underscores the importance of judicial courage in confronting misuse of the legal process, especially when the consequences are as severe as the loss of liberty, home, and reputation.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.