Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Maherban Hasan Babu Khan, was convicted by the Special Court at Mangaon, District Raigad, for offences under Sections 4 and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act) and Sections 376(2)(i) and 376(2)(j) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). He was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 7 years under Section 4 and 10 years under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, with fines. The victim, a 10th standard student, alleged that the appellant had a sexual relationship with her under the pretext of marriage, and when she became pregnant, he refused to marry her and went to Uttar Pradesh. The FIR was lodged under POCSO Act, IPC, and the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The prosecution claimed the victim was a minor (born 19/12/2000) and a member of a scheduled caste. The appellant appealed against the conviction. The High Court examined the evidence, particularly the victim's age. The birth certificate was not proved by the author, and the victim's own testimony about her age was inconsistent. The court noted that the victim admitted to a consensual relationship but the appellant did not fulfill his promise of marriage. However, since the prosecution failed to prove the victim's minority beyond reasonable doubt, the conviction under POCSO Act could not be sustained. Consequently, the conviction under IPC also fell. The court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction, and acquitted the appellant. The appellant was directed to be released unless required in any other case.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Age of Victim - Proof of Minority - Sections 4, 6 Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 - The prosecution failed to prove that the victim was a minor as the birth certificate was not proved in accordance with law and the victim's own testimony regarding her age was inconsistent. Held that the benefit of doubt must be given to the appellant (Paras 10-15). B) Criminal Law - Rape - Consent - Sections 375, 376(2)(i), 376(2)(j) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - The victim admitted to a consensual sexual relationship under promise of marriage, but the appellant did not marry her. However, since the age was not proved, the conviction under IPC was also set aside. Held that the prosecution must prove all ingredients beyond reasonable doubt (Paras 16-20).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that the victim was a minor at the time of the incident, and whether the conviction under POCSO Act and IPC is sustainable.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. Conviction and sentence set aside. Appellant acquitted. Bail bonds cancelled. Appellant to be released unless required in any other case.
Law Points
- Age of victim
- Proof of minority
- Inconsistencies in evidence
- Benefit of doubt
- POCSO Act
- Indian Penal Code
- Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act
