The Delhi High Court, in its decision to overturn the conviction and five-year sentence of a man accused of sexually assaulting a minor girl, emphasized that the social stigma endured by individuals falsely labeled as "child abusers" is more emotionally burdensome than imprisonment.

Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta, overseeing the appeal of the convict against the trial court's ruling from January 2023, highlighted substantial deficiencies in the prosecution's case and expressed doubts regarding the reliability of the victim's testimony.

"The presumption of guilt under Section 29 & 30 of POCSO Act taken by the learned Trial Court could not be an edifice to convict the appellant since testimony of the victim is unreliable and there are serious flaws and gaps in the prosecution case," the court order, passed on Monday, said.

It underscored that a wrongful conviction carries graver consequences than a wrongful acquittal.

"As a wrongful acquittal shakes the confidence of people, a wrongful conviction is far worse. A child abuser in the eventuality of false implication even continues to suffer a blot of social stigma which is much more painful than the rigours of a trial and imprisonment," the court order said.

The case traces back to 2016, when the victim, aged 12 at the time, accused the appellant, her aunt's brother, of sexually abusing her in her own home.

The High Court noted a delay in filing the FIR, which gained importance due to the ongoing matrimonial discord between the victim's uncle and aunt, who is the appellant's sister.

"A complete stoic silence on the incident for a period of five days creates a deep shadow of doubt on the prosecution case. It may also be noticed that the victim has been changing her version regarding the acts committed by the appellant at her discretion," the order stated.

"It cannot be ruled out that the case is based upon tutoring or fabrication due to animosity and matrimonial disputes. It may also be noticed that the victim also refused for internal medical examination for no plausible reasons," it added.

Therefore, the court concluded that the prosecution did not sufficiently prove the charges against the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. Consequently, it directed his release by acquitting him.