Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Rajesh S/o Rajan Nair, was convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Shahada, for offences under Section 376(2)(m) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 6 read with 5 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO Act) for allegedly raping a 5th standard student who attended his tuition. The prosecution alleged that on 12-09-2016, the accused made other children leave, shut the door, removed his clothes, forcibly removed the victim's clothes, touched her breasts and private parts, and attempted to insert his male organ into her private part. The victim returned home and narrated the incident to her mother, who lodged a complaint. The trial court convicted the appellant. On appeal, the appellant argued that the case was a false implication due to rivalry between educational institutions, that the complaint was drafted by someone else and merely signed by the mother, that the victim was tutored, and that medical evidence did not support rape. The High Court examined the evidence and found material inconsistencies between the testimony of the victim and her mother, as well as lapses in investigation. The medical evidence did not confirm penetration. The court held that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt and allowed the appeal, setting aside the conviction and acquitting the appellant.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Rape and Aggravated Penetrative Sexual Assault - Sections 376(2)(m) IPC, Section 6 read with 5 POCSO Act - Conviction based on sole testimony of victim - Held that conviction can be based on sole testimony of victim if it is reliable and inspires confidence, but in the present case, the testimony of the victim and her mother contained material inconsistencies and contradictions, and medical evidence did not support the allegation of penetration, hence the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt (Paras 1-10).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellant under Section 376(2)(m) IPC and Section 6 read with 5 of the POCSO Act is sustainable in light of inconsistencies in the prosecution evidence and lack of corroboration.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. Conviction and sentence set aside. Appellant acquitted of all charges. Bail bonds cancelled. Fine, if paid, to be refunded.
Law Points
- Conviction under Section 376(2)(m) IPC and Section 6 read with 5 of POCSO Act requires corroboration of victim's testimony
- medical evidence must support allegation of penetration
- inconsistencies in prosecution case lead to benefit of doubt
Case Details
2024 LawText (BOM) (01) 106
Criminal Appeal No. 1103 of 2019 with Criminal Application No. 3284 of 2019
Mr. Vikrant P. Raje (for appellant), Mr. N.D. Batule (APP for State), Mr. Z.H. Farooqui (for respondent no.2)
The State Of Maharashtra, X.Y.Z.
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal appeal against conviction for rape and aggravated penetrative sexual assault
Remedy Sought
Appellant sought setting aside of conviction and acquittal
Filing Reason
Appellant convicted by trial court for offences under Section 376(2)(m) IPC and Section 6 read with 5 POCSO Act
Previous Decisions
Trial court convicted appellant; appeal filed against that judgment
Issues
Whether the conviction under Section 376(2)(m) IPC and Section 6 read with 5 POCSO Act is sustainable given inconsistencies in prosecution evidence and lack of corroboration.
Submissions/Arguments
Appellant argued false implication due to rivalry between educational institutions, complaint drafted by someone else, victim tutored, medical evidence does not support rape, material inconsistencies in testimony of victim and mother, lapses in investigation.
Prosecution argued that evidence of victim and mother is consistent and sufficient to prove guilt.
Ratio Decidendi
The prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. In cases of sexual offences, the sole testimony of the victim can be the basis of conviction if it is reliable and inspires confidence. However, when the testimony of the victim and other witnesses contains material inconsistencies and contradictions, and medical evidence does not support the allegation of penetration, the benefit of doubt must be given to the accused.
Judgment Excerpts
By way of instant appeal convict original accused is assailing the judgment and order passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Shahada in Sessions Case No.51 of 2016 holding appellant guilty for offence under Section 376(2)(m) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 6 read with 5 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (the POCSO Act) and to pay fine respectively.
Learned Counsel for appellant pointed out that it is apparently false implication on account of some rivalry between two education institutions.
Procedural History
The appellant was charged and tried by the Additional Sessions Judge, Shahada, in Sessions Case No.51 of 2016. The trial court convicted the appellant. The appellant filed Criminal Appeal No. 1103 of 2019 before the Bombay High Court, Bench at Aurangabad, challenging the conviction. The appeal was reserved on 09 January 2024 and pronounced on 22 January 2024.
Acts & Sections
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): 376(2)(m)
- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act): 6, 5
