Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Rajesh Murlidhar Lonbale, was convicted by the Special Judge under Sections 376(1), 376(2)(l) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 4, 6, 10 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 for allegedly sexually assaulting a minor girl on 17.11.2014. The incident was reported on 24.11.2014 after a seven-day delay. The prosecution examined 15 witnesses, including the victim (PW-7), her maternal aunt (PW-1), and medical officer (PW-9). The defence argued false implication due to a prior dispute between the accused and PW-1. The High Court found that the delay in lodging the FIR was not properly explained, and the evidence of the victim and other witnesses contained material contradictions and omissions. The medical evidence showed no injuries. The court held that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt, and the accused was entitled to acquittal. The appeal was allowed, and the conviction and sentence were set aside.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Delay in FIR - Unexplained Delay - The seven-day delay in lodging the FIR was not satisfactorily explained, casting doubt on the prosecution's case. (Paras 9-12)
B) Evidence Law - Child Witness - Reliability - The testimony of the victim (PW-7) was found to be unreliable due to contradictions and lack of corroboration, leading to acquittal. (Paras 10-12)
C) Criminal Law - Benefit of Doubt - Acquittal - The accused is entitled to benefit of doubt where prosecution evidence is inconsistent and insufficient to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. (Para 12)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt for offences under IPC and POCSO Act, given the delay in lodging FIR and inconsistencies in evidence.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. Conviction and sentence set aside. Appellant acquitted of all charges. Bail bonds cancelled.
Law Points
- Delay in lodging FIR
- Unreliable testimony of child witness
- Absence of corroboration
- Benefit of doubt
- Presumption of innocence
Case Details
2024 LawText (BOM) (7) 305
Criminal Appeal No. 114 of 2021
Mr Y.B. Mandpe for appellant, Mrs. Mukta Kavimandan for respondent/State
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal appeal against conviction for sexual offences under IPC and POCSO Act.
Remedy Sought
Appellant sought acquittal by setting aside the conviction and sentence.
Filing Reason
Appellant was convicted by the Special Judge for offences under Sections 376(1), 376(2)(l) IPC and Sections 4, 6, 10 POCSO Act.
Previous Decisions
The Special Judge convicted the accused and sentenced him to 10 years rigorous imprisonment and fine.
Issues
Whether the delay in lodging the FIR was properly explained?
Whether the testimony of the victim and other witnesses was reliable and consistent?
Whether the prosecution proved the guilt beyond reasonable doubt?
Submissions/Arguments
Appellant argued false implication due to prior dispute with informant, delay in FIR, contradictions in evidence, and lack of medical corroboration.
Respondent argued that delay was explained, contradictions were minor, and evidence was sufficient to prove guilt.
Ratio Decidendi
In cases of sexual offences, the prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Unexplained delay in lodging FIR and unreliable testimony of witnesses, especially when contradicted by medical evidence, entitles the accused to acquittal.
Judgment Excerpts
In this case, there was seven days delay in lodging the report. The facts which have been proved on the basis of the evidence need to be stated at the out set for the purpose of proper appreciation of the evidence of the witnesses.
In my opinion when there is a documentary evidence to prove the birth date, the report of the Radiologist cannot be given primacy.
Procedural History
FIR registered on 24.11.2014 for offences under IPC and POCSO Act. Charge sheet filed. Trial held before Special Judge who convicted accused on 26.02.2021. Accused appealed to High Court.
Acts & Sections
- Indian Penal Code, 1860: 376(1), 376(2)(l)
- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012: 4, 6, 10
