The Bombay High Court examined the evidence against the accused, initially convicted of rape under Section 376-AB IPC and Sections 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act. After reviewing witness testimonies, medical evidence, and inconsistencies in the victim's statements, the court found insufficient proof for penetrative sexual assault. Instead, the court reclassified the crime as aggravated sexual assault under Section 10 of the POCSO Act. The accused's sentence was modified to the period already served, and he was ordered to be released.

The High Court determined that the evidence did not support the original conviction of penetrative sexual assault. The court focused on the victim’s consistent but less severe allegations in her statements to medical professionals and the magistrate, which suggested only touching rather than penetration. Given the lack of corroborating medical evidence and inconsistencies in the prosecution's narrative, the court concluded that the charge was inflated and that the proven offense was aggravated sexual assault.

1. Background and Initial Conviction: The appellant, Chatur Meshram, was initially convicted by the Sessions Court in Gadchiroli for rape under Section 376-AB IPC and Sections 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act, with a 20-year prison sentence. The prosecution alleged that the appellant lured the young victim, aged four, into his home and attempted penetrative sexual assault.

2. Inconsistent Statements and Medical Examination: Key discrepancies arose from the victim’s medical examination and her statement under Section 164 of the CrPC. The medical report showed no injuries, and the victim's statements to the doctor and magistrate did not corroborate the claim of penetrative assault. Instead, the victim only mentioned inappropriate touching.

3. Legal Scrutiny and Applicability of POCSO Sections: The court scrutinized the stringent requirements under POCSO, noting the importance of credible foundational evidence. While POCSO’s Section 29 allows presumptions against the accused, the prosecution must establish basic facts beyond reasonable doubt, especially for severe charges like penetrative assault.

4. Judgment and Reclassification of the Offense: Based on the inconsistencies and the absence of definitive proof of penetration, the High Court reclassified the charge from penetrative sexual assault to aggravated sexual assault under Section 10 of the POCSO Act, which addresses non-penetrative sexual acts with a minor.

5. Sentence Modification and Final Order: With the revised conviction, the High Court deemed the sentence already served by the appellant (five years and two months) sufficient and ordered his immediate release.

Acts and Sections Discussed:

• Indian Penal Code (IPC):
  • Section 376-AB: Deals with rape on a minor below twelve years, prescribing severe penalties.
• Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012:
  • Section 4 & 6: Pertains to penetrative sexual assault and aggravated penetrative sexual assault.
  • Section 7 & 10: Addresses sexual assault and aggravated sexual assault, relevant to inappropriate touching without penetration.
  • Section 29: Establishes a presumption of guilt, shifting the burden to the accused, though still subject to foundational evidentiary standards.

Ratio Decidendi:

The High Court underscored that in cases under the POCSO Act, especially with severe charges like penetrative assault, foundational facts must be conclusively proven. Without sufficient evidence, especially with inconsistencies in the victim's statements, charges must be accurately scaled to reflect the proven actions of the accused.

Subjects:

Criminal Law – POCSO Act – Revisiting Conviction Based on Evidence

ChildProtection #AggravatedSexualAssault #LegalStandards #CriminalAppeal