Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Chatur @ Chetan Maroti Meshram, was convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Gadchiroli, for offences under Section 376-AB IPC and Sections 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act, and sentenced to 20 years rigorous imprisonment. The case arose from an incident on 14 July 2019, where the victim, a four-year-old girl, allegedly told her mother (PW-1) that the appellant took her to his house, removed his clothes, lay on her, and inserted his finger into her vagina. The mother lodged an FIR the next day. The prosecution examined five witnesses, including the victim (PW-2), her mother (PW-1), and the medical officer (PW-4). The trial court relied on the testimony of the mother and victim to convict the appellant. In appeal, the appellant argued that the evidence was inconsistent: the victim did not mention digital penetration in her statement to the doctor or in her Section 164 CrPC statement before the magistrate, and the knickers worn by the victim was not seized or produced. The medical officer found no injuries to the victim's genitals. The High Court analyzed the evidence and found material contradictions. The victim's court testimony included details not present in earlier statements, raising doubts about tutoring. The non-production of the knickers, which could have corroborated the assault, was held against the prosecution. The court concluded that the prosecution failed to prove penetrative sexual assault beyond reasonable doubt. However, the court noted that the evidence might support a lesser offence under Section 7 punishable under Section 10 of the POCSO Act (sexual assault without penetration). The court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction under Sections 376-AB IPC and Sections 4 and 6 POCSO Act, and remanded the matter to the trial court for consideration of the lesser offence under Section 7/10 POCSO Act.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Penetrative Sexual Assault - Proof of Penetration - Section 376-AB IPC, Sections 4 and 6 POCSO Act - The court examined whether the prosecution proved penetrative sexual assault beyond reasonable doubt where the victim's statements to the doctor and magistrate did not mention digital penetration, and the knickers worn by the victim was not seized or produced - Held that the inconsistencies and missing evidence create reasonable doubt, and the conviction cannot be sustained (Paras 1-20). B) Evidence Law - Corroboration - Medical Evidence - Section 45 Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - The medical officer's evidence did not corroborate the prosecution case as no injuries were found on the victim's genitals, and the history given to the doctor did not include finger insertion - Held that medical evidence, when inconsistent with oral testimony, can weaken the prosecution case (Paras 12-15). C) Criminal Procedure - Statement under Section 164 CrPC - Evidentiary Value - Section 164 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - The victim's statement recorded by the magistrate under Section 164 CrPC did not mention digital penetration, contradicting her court testimony - Held that such inconsistency is significant and creates doubt about the prosecution's version (Paras 16-18).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the evidence on record is sufficient to prove the guilt of the appellant for the offences punishable under Section 376-AB of the IPC and Sections 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. Conviction under Section 376-AB IPC and Sections 4 and 6 POCSO Act set aside. Matter remanded to trial court for consideration of lesser offence under Section 7 punishable under Section 10 of POCSO Act. Appellant to remain in custody pending further orders.
Law Points
- Penetrative sexual assault requires proof of penetration beyond reasonable doubt
- Inconsistencies in victim's statements to medical officer and magistrate can create doubt
- Non-production of material evidence like clothing can weaken prosecution case
- Conviction under POCSO Act cannot be based solely on uncorroborated testimony if inconsistencies exist
