Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Sameer Shashikant Jadhav, was convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ratnagiri, in Special Case No.19/2018 for offences under Sections 363, 376, 504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Sections 3(a) read with 4, and 5(i),(j)(ii),(l) read with 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act). He was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 10 years for the rape and POCSO offences, with fines and default sentences. The appellant challenged the conviction before the Bombay High Court. The prosecution case was that the appellant kidnapped a 14-year-old girl from her school, took her to a secluded place, raped her, and threatened her. The victim's mother lodged a missing complaint, and the victim was recovered later. The trial court relied on the victim's testimony and convicted the appellant. On appeal, the High Court re-appreciated the evidence and found material inconsistencies in the victim's testimony regarding the date, time, and place of the incident. The victim's mother's testimony contradicted the victim on key aspects. The medical evidence did not support the allegation of rape. The High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. The court noted that the victim's testimony was unreliable and lacked corroboration. Consequently, the High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence, and acquitted the appellant. The court directed that the appellant be released forthwith unless required in any other case.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Rape and POCSO - Benefit of Doubt - Inconsistencies in Victim's Testimony - The appellant was convicted for kidnapping, rape, and aggravated penetrative sexual assault of a minor. The High Court found material contradictions in the victim's testimony regarding the date of incident, place of incident, and the manner of assault. The victim's mother's testimony also contradicted the victim. Held that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt, and the appellant is entitled to acquittal (Paras 1-27). B) Evidence Law - Corroboration - Necessity in Sexual Offences - The victim's testimony was the sole basis for conviction, but it suffered from serious inconsistencies and was not corroborated by medical evidence or other witnesses. The medical report did not support the allegation of rape. Held that in the absence of reliable corroboration, conviction cannot be sustained (Paras 15-20). C) Criminal Procedure - Appeal against Conviction - Appellate Court's Power - The High Court, in appeal, re-appreciated the evidence and found that the trial court's findings were perverse and not based on the evidence. Held that the appellate court can interfere when the conviction is based on unreliable evidence (Paras 21-27).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellant under Sections 363, 376, 504, 506 IPC and Sections 3(a)/4, 5(i),(j)(ii),(l)/6 of the POCSO Act is sustainable based on the evidence on record.
Final Decision
The appeal is allowed. The judgment and order dated 25.3.2021 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ratnagiri, in Special Case No.19/2018 is set aside. The appellant is acquitted of all charges. The appellant shall be released forthwith unless required in any other case. Fine amount, if paid, be refunded to the appellant.
Law Points
- Benefit of doubt
- Inconsistencies in victim's testimony
- Lack of corroboration
- Age determination
- POCSO Act
- Rape
- Kidnapping
- Criminal intimidation
