Case Note & Summary
The appellant, original complainant, filed an appeal under Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the judgment and order dated 13.06.2018 passed by the learned Special Judge, Beed in Special (POCSO) Case No. 5 of 2017, whereby the respondent No.2-accused was acquitted of the offences punishable under Section 376(2) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. The prosecution case was that on 15.07.2013, the victim lodged a report alleging that the accused, who is her relative, had sexual intercourse with her on two occasions in 2010-2011, resulting in pregnancy. The FIR was lodged after a delay of about 8-9 months. The trial court acquitted the accused on the ground that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt due to inconsistencies in the evidence of the victim and other witnesses, delay in lodging the FIR, and failure to prove the age of the victim. The High Court, in appeal, examined the evidence and found that the trial court's findings were not perverse. The court noted that the victim's testimony was inconsistent with the FIR and the medical evidence, and the delay in lodging the FIR was not satisfactorily explained. The court also observed that the prosecution failed to prove that the victim was below 18 years at the time of the incident, which was essential for the offence under the POCSO Act. The High Court held that the appellate court should not interfere with an order of acquittal unless the findings are perverse or based on no evidence. Since the trial court's appreciation of evidence was plausible, the appeal was dismissed and the acquittal was upheld.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure Code - Appeal against acquittal - Section 372 CrPC - Scope of appellate court - The appellate court should not interfere with the order of acquittal unless the findings are perverse or based on no evidence. The court must give due weight to the trial court's appreciation of evidence and the presumption of innocence in favor of the accused. (Paras 1-13) B) Evidence Act - Delay in lodging FIR - Inconsistencies in prosecution case - The delay of about 8-9 months in lodging the FIR and material contradictions in the testimony of the victim and other witnesses create doubt about the prosecution case. The court held that such delay and inconsistencies are fatal to the prosecution. (Paras 2-12) C) Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 - Age of victim - Section 4 POCSO Act - The prosecution failed to prove that the victim was below 18 years at the time of the incident. The medical evidence and school records were not conclusive. Therefore, the offence under POCSO Act was not made out. (Paras 3-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the judgment of acquittal passed by the Special Judge, Beed in Special (POCSO) Case No. 5 of 2017 is perverse and liable to be set aside?
Final Decision
The appeal is dismissed. The judgment and order of acquittal dated 13.06.2018 passed by the Special Judge, Beed in Special (POCSO) Case No. 5 of 2017 is confirmed.
Law Points
- Appeal against acquittal
- Section 372 CrPC
- Scope of appellate court in acquittal appeals
- Inconsistencies in prosecution evidence
- Delay in lodging FIR
- Age of victim
- Consent
- POCSO Act
- 2012
