In a development raising serious questions about the judicial process in a POCSO case, the Gujarat High Court has stayed a 20-year sentence handed to Madhav Daya Vaghela, convicted of raping a 14-year-old girl. The court’s decision came after concerns emerged regarding critical inconsistencies in DNA evidence and the verification of the alleged victim’s age. Vaghela, a resident of Bhayavadar in Rajkot district, was also granted bail pending the final decision on his appeal.
The original verdict was delivered by the Dhoraji Sessions Court in February 2025, where Vaghela was found guilty under the stringent provisions of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act. The case began after a complaint was filed by the minor’s mother-in-law, accusing Vaghela of sexual assault that allegedly led to the girl’s pregnancy.
Crucial Doubts Over DNA and Victim’s Age
Forensic results presented during the trial revealed that Vaghela’s DNA did not match that of either the girl or the fetus. Despite this, the sessions court ruled in favor of conviction, leaning heavily on the testimony of the victim and circumstantial elements. This prompted Vaghela’s legal team, led by Advocate Rathin Rawal, to challenge the conviction in the High Court.
The defense also highlighted the absence of a birth certificate to confirm the victim’s age, pointing out that the prosecution relied solely on school records. These records, the court noted, did not clearly indicate the origin of the birthdate recorded, casting doubt on whether the girl was a minor at the time of the alleged offence.
Court Observes Gaps in Trial Procedure
In its interim ruling, a division bench of Justice Ilesh J Vora and Justice Sandeep Bhatt observed that the trial court failed to properly scrutinize the method used to determine the girl’s age. They further expressed concern over the reliance on unverified school documents without additional corroboration.
Given the inconsistencies in evidence and procedural lapses, the High Court ordered a stay on the sentence and granted Vaghela bail until the appeal is resolved. The case has stirred wider legal debates about evidentiary standards in POCSO cases, especially where scientific findings challenge witness accounts.
