Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Bhaiyya S/o Vijay Chakre, was convicted by the Special Judge, Achalpur, for offences under Section 376(2)(f)(l) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, and sentenced to 14 years' rigorous imprisonment. The case arose from an alleged incident on 05.01.2017, where the appellant, a teacher at a residential Deaf and Dumb School, was accused of committing penetrative sexual assault on a 12-year-old partially mentally retarded deaf and dumb girl, who was a student at the school. The victim used to accompany the appellant to school on his motorcycle. The prosecution alleged that on the day of the incident, the appellant called the victim inside his house, made her lie down on a cot, and committed sexual intercourse with her three times, also inserting his private part in her mouth. The victim disclosed the incident to her mother on 06.01.2017, and the FIR was lodged on 09.01.2017. The trial court convicted the appellant based on the testimony of the victim (PW3), her mother (PW1), and medical evidence. The High Court, on appeal, examined the evidence and found major inconsistencies. The victim's testimony was recorded with the help of an interpreter (PW2), but the court noted that the victim gave tutored answers and her statements were not reliable. The medical evidence did not conclusively prove penetrative sexual assault, as the hymen was intact and there were no injuries. Crucially, the DNA report (Exh.170) showed that the semen detected on the victim's knickers and the blood on the bedsheet did not match the appellant's DNA. The court also noted that the delay in lodging the FIR was not properly explained, and the defence of false implication due to political rivalry was plausible. The High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and the presumption under Section 29 of the POCSO Act was rebutted by the DNA evidence. The appeal was allowed, the conviction and sentence were set aside, and the appellant was acquitted.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Rape and POCSO - Conviction based on unreliable testimony and contradictory DNA evidence - Sections 376(2)(f)(l) IPC, 6 POCSO Act, 2012 - The appellant was convicted for penetrative sexual assault on a partially mentally retarded deaf and dumb minor girl. The High Court set aside the conviction, holding that the victim's testimony was tutored and the DNA report showed that the semen on the victim's knickers and blood on the bedsheet did not match the accused, creating reasonable doubt. (Paras 1-20) B) Evidence Law - DNA Evidence - Evidentiary value - The DNA report, though received after judgment, was considered by the appellate court. The court held that the DNA evidence, which excluded the accused, was crucial and could not be ignored, as it directly contradicted the prosecution's case. (Paras 9-12) C) Criminal Procedure - Delay in FIR - Effect - The delay of four days in lodging the FIR was not satisfactorily explained, and the reasons given were improbable, casting doubt on the prosecution's version. (Paras 13-15) D) POCSO Act - Presumption under Section 29 - Rebuttal - The presumption of guilt under Section 29 of the POCSO Act was rebutted by the DNA evidence and the unreliable testimony of the victim and her mother. (Paras 16-18)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellant under Section 376(2)(f)(l) IPC and Section 6 POCSO Act is sustainable in light of DNA evidence excluding the accused and inconsistencies in the prosecution case.
Final Decision
The appeal is allowed. The judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 22.01.2019 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-1 and Special Judge, Achalpur, is set aside. The appellant is acquitted of the offences under Section 376(2)(f)(l) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. The appellant is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other case.
Law Points
- Presumption under Section 29 POCSO Act is rebuttable
- DNA evidence can override presumption
- delay in FIR not fatal if explained
- testimony of disabled victim requires careful scrutiny
- medical evidence must corroborate sexual assault
