The High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, overturned the conviction of Rajesh Murlidhar Lonbale. The appellant was previously found guilty of sexual offenses under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act. The court's decision to acquit was primarily based on inconsistencies in witness testimonies, unexplained delays in reporting the incident, and lack of credible evidence to support the prosecution's case.

1. Background of the Case

The appellant, Rajesh Murlidhar Lonbale, was accused of sexually assaulting a minor girl while working as a malaria worker in the village of Kitali. The incident allegedly occurred on November 17, 2014, and was reported on November 24, 2014, by the victim's maternal aunt.

2. Prosecution's Case

The prosecution argued that the appellant had committed offenses under Sections 376(1), 376(2)(l) of the IPC, and Sections 4, 6, and 10 of the POCSO Act. The victim's aunt, who reported the case, claimed that the victim narrated the incident to her a few days after it occurred. The prosecution relied on the testimonies of multiple witnesses and the victim's statement to build its case.

3. Defense's Argument

The defense contended that the appellant was falsely implicated due to a prior dispute between him and the informant, who was also a health worker in the village. The defense highlighted the delay in filing the report, the lack of physical evidence, and contradictions in witness statements to argue for acquittal.

4. Court's Analysis and Judgment

The High Court noted several inconsistencies in the prosecution's case, including the unexplained delay in reporting the incident, discrepancies in witness testimonies, and the absence of any concrete medical evidence linking the appellant to the crime. The court found the prosecution's evidence insufficient to sustain a conviction beyond a reasonable doubt.

5. Conclusion

The court acquitted Rajesh Murlidhar Lonbale, setting aside the lower court's judgment, and highlighted the importance of credible evidence and timely reporting in cases involving serious allegations such as those under the POCSO Act.