Introduction:

In the criminal appeal titled Ms. Suja Jones Mazurier v. State of Karnataka & Anr. [Criminal Appeal No. 1050 of 2017], the Karnataka High Court on 6 June 2025 upheld the acquittal of Pascal Mazurier, a father accused of sexually assaulting his minor daughter. The complaint was filed by his wife, Suja Jones Mazurier, who alleged that the offences took place in April 2010, May 2012, and most recently on 13 June 2012, when the child was just under four years old. The trial court had acquitted the accused after observing that the charges were not proven beyond reasonable doubt and appeared to stem from personal disputes and pre-litigation planning by the complainant. Dissatisfied, the complainant approached the High Court to challenge the acquittal. A division bench comprising Justice Sreenivas Harish Kumar and Justice K.S. Hemalekha, after thoroughly reviewing the evidence and reasoning of the trial court, dismissed the appeal and affirmed the acquittal, citing inconsistencies in testimonies, failure to examine key witnesses, unexplained delays, and lack of corroborative medical and forensic evidence.

Arguments of the Appellant (Complainant):

The appellant, represented by Advocate P.N. Hegde, contested the findings of the trial court, asserting that the acquittal was based on an incorrect appreciation of facts and evidence. The appellant contended that her decision to consult NGOs, legal professionals, and doctors prior to filing the complaint was not indicative of fabrication or malice but rather a cautious and prudent approach, given the sensitive nature of the allegations and the relationship of the accused to the victim. It was natural for a mother to tread carefully when the suspect was her own husband, and such consultations were not aimed at manipulation but at ensuring the child’s welfare and verifying the facts. The appellant argued that the delay in filing the First Information Report (FIR)—from April 2010 and May 2012 to June 2012—was due to this cautious approach and not malafide intention. She emphasized that even if the complaint was drafted with legal help, it did not invalidate the content or sincerity behind it. Moreover, the complainant criticized the trial court for not giving due weight to the medical evidence and for brushing aside the testimony of the child, the victim in the case. It was further submitted that the medical observations regarding scratch marks and redness in the genital area, though not conclusively proving assault, supported the allegations and were dismissed too lightly. The appellant further submitted that the psychological impact and behavioural indicators in the child were consistent with trauma and needed deeper consideration rather than strict insistence on direct forensic proof. She argued that courts have held that the sole testimony of the prosecutrix, especially in cases under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, can be the basis of conviction if found credible. It was also submitted that the trial court gave excessive weight to the past disputes between the husband and wife and the pending custody issues, ignoring the seriousness of the crime alleged. The appeal sought a reconsideration of the credibility of the prosecutrix’s testimony, a reevaluation of the medical findings, and a fresh analysis of the delay and the background of the complainant’s conduct as reasonable rather than suspicious.

Arguments of the Respondents (Accused and State):

On the other hand, the respondents, represented by Special Public Prosecutor-II Vijaya Kumar Majage for the State and Advocate S. Mahesh for the accused, supported the trial court’s reasoning and emphasized that the allegations were an outcome of ongoing marital discord. It was submitted that the relationship between the complainant (PW.4) and the accused had been acrimonious, with the accused contemplating separation and the complainant anxious over child custody and related matters. The FIR, it was contended, was filed as a counterblast to prevent the accused from leaving India and gaining custody of the child. The accused emphasized that the timing of the FIR—filed just a day after the alleged incident on 13 June 2012—and the admission by the complainant that she had been meeting doctors, lawyers, and NGO professionals even before that date, suggested a well-planned effort to build a case rather than a spontaneous reaction to an actual offence. The respondents pointed out that there was an unexplained delay of more than two years between the first alleged incident in 2010 and the lodging of the complaint. They further argued that the complainant never directly approached the police until all strategic steps, including obtaining NGO support, had been taken. The respondents also highlighted the failure of the prosecution to produce a key independent witness—Geeta, the domestic help—who was present in the house during the relevant time and whose statement, although recorded by the police, was never brought on record in court. This omission, according to the defence, was deliberate and intended to suppress facts unfavorable to the prosecution. Moreover, it was emphasized that the medical findings did not support any case of sexual assault, and multiple doctors confirmed that there were no injuries or conclusive signs of abuse. The DNA evidence also failed to corroborate the prosecution’s case. Regarding the testimony of the minor child, it was submitted that the child was tutored by the complainant, with promises of chocolates and outings if she gave statements aligning with the accusations. This, according to the respondents, made the testimony unreliable and manufactured. Given the combination of delay, lack of corroboration, suppression of material evidence, and coaching of the child, it was argued that the trial court rightly acquitted the accused and that there was no legal ground for appellate interference.

Judgment and Reasoning of the Karnataka High Court:

After hearing both sides and carefully reviewing the entire case record, the Karnataka High Court found no merit in the appeal and upheld the trial court’s acquittal. The bench reiterated the settled legal position that while conviction can be based on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix or child victim in POCSO cases, such testimony must be credible, coherent, and free from external influence. In this case, the High Court observed that the testimony of the complainant (PW.4) showed signs of careful preparation, with the complaint being legally drafted after consultations with NGOs and legal professionals. It noted that this coordination, though not inherently malicious, reflected a calculated approach that lacked spontaneity. The Court remarked that while consulting NGOs in cases of domestic violence or child abuse is understandable, the fact that these consultations began even before the alleged triggering incident on 13 June 2012 raises doubt about the genuineness of the allegations made in the FIR filed on 14 June 2012. The Court highlighted the medical evidence presented by several independent doctors, including Dr. Roshini P. Rao (PW.17), Dr. Madhuri Murali (PW.6), and Dr. Nalini (PW.8), all of whom stated that there were no visible injuries or clinical signs of sexual abuse. Redness and scratch marks were seen but were inconclusive, and the child was diagnosed with a urinary tract infection. The DNA evidence also failed to indicate the presence of the accused’s DNA on the victim or any other material to support the assault claim. The High Court placed strong emphasis on the failure to examine Geeta, the domestic worker, whose presence and knowledge could have shed light on the allegations. The Court viewed this omission as critical and held that the prosecution’s failure to explain why Geeta was not produced suggested deliberate suppression of evidence. The bench remarked that the investigating officer’s testimony hinted that Geeta possibly held information that the prosecution did not want disclosed in court. The Court was equally unimpressed by the testimony of the child victim (PW.23), who, during cross-examination, admitted that she had been coached by her mother and promised chocolates and a picnic for making certain statements. This admission, the Court held, destroyed the credibility of the victim’s testimony and lent weight to the defence’s argument that the child’s evidence had been manipulated. The Court noted that such tutored evidence, especially in sensitive cases involving children, could not be relied upon without substantial corroboration. Given these findings, the bench concluded that the prosecution failed to discharge its burden of proving the charges beyond reasonable doubt. It said that the inconsistencies in testimonies, medical and DNA findings not supporting the case, the strategic and delayed filing of the complaint, and the coaching of the child collectively dismantled the case built by the prosecution. The Court further held that the trial court’s analysis of evidence was thorough and based on sound reasoning, and there was no error or illegality warranting appellate interference. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.