Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Raju Suryawanshi, was convicted by the Special Judge under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO) and the Indian Penal Code for offences including aggravated penetrative sexual assault and rape. He appealed against his conviction. The High Court examined the evidence, particularly the testimony of the victim, which was found to be inconsistent and lacking corroboration from medical or other evidence. The court noted that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt. Consequently, the court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction, and acquitted the appellant, giving him the benefit of doubt.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Rape and POCSO - Inconsistent Testimony - Benefit of Doubt - The appellant was convicted under Sections 3, 4, 5, 6 of POCSO Act and Section 376 IPC. The victim's testimony was found to be inconsistent and lacking corroboration. The court held that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt, and the appellant was entitled to the benefit of doubt. (Paras 1-10)
B) Evidence Law - Child Witness - Corroboration - The testimony of the child victim was not corroborated by medical evidence or other witnesses. The court noted discrepancies in the victim's statements and found that the prosecution did not establish the offence beyond reasonable doubt. (Paras 5-8)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellant under Sections 3 and 4, 5 and 6 of the POCSO Act and Section 376 of IPC is sustainable based on the evidence on record.
Final Decision
The appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentence imposed by the learned Special Judge under the POCSO Act and Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar in Sessions Case No. 6 of 2015 on 6th April 2016 is set aside. The appellant is acquitted of all charges. He is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other case.
Law Points
- Benefit of doubt
- Inconsistent testimony
- Lack of corroboration
- Presumption of innocence
- Standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt
Case Details
2023 LawText (BOM) (06) 32
Criminal Appeal No.471 of 2016
Smt. Vibha Kankanwadi, Abhay S. Waghwase
Mr. Mukul S. Kulkarni (for appellant), Mr. A.V. Deshmukh (APP for respondent)
Raju S/o Dadu Suryawanshi
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal appeal against conviction under POCSO Act and IPC for sexual offences against a child.
Remedy Sought
Appellant sought acquittal by challenging his conviction and sentence.
Filing Reason
Appellant was convicted by the Special Judge under POCSO Act and IPC for aggravated penetrative sexual assault and rape.
Previous Decisions
The appellant was convicted by the learned Special Judge under POCSO Act and Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar in Sessions Case No. 6 of 2015 on 6th April 2016.
Issues
Whether the conviction of the appellant under Sections 3 and 4, 5 and 6 of the POCSO Act and Section 376 of IPC is sustainable based on the evidence on record.
Submissions/Arguments
Appellant argued that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt due to inconsistencies in the victim's testimony and lack of corroboration.
Respondent argued that the conviction was based on the credible testimony of the victim and other evidence.
Ratio Decidendi
The prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Inconsistent testimony of the victim, lack of corroboration, and failure to establish the offence beyond reasonable doubt entitle the accused to the benefit of doubt and acquittal.
Judgment Excerpts
Present Appeal has been filed by the original accused challenging his conviction by the learned Special Judge under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act and Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar in Sessions Case No. 6 of 2015 on 6th April 2016 after holding him guilty of committing offence under Section 3 punishable under Section 4, offence under Section 5 punishable under Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act.
We are aware about the provisions of Section 228-A of the Indian Penal Code and ratio laid down in Sangita Yeshwantrao Tanpure vs. State of Maharashtra and others, 2021 All M.R. Cri. 1131, Sajjan Hirachand Gusinge vs. State of Maharashtra and another, 2023(2) Bom.C.R.(Cri.) 282, State of Punjab vs. Ramdev Singh, (2004) 1 SCC 421, Nipun Saxena and another vs. Union of India and others (2019), 2 SCC, 703, and so many other pronouncements on the same point that the identity of the rape victim should not be disclosed.
Procedural History
The appellant was convicted by the Special Judge under POCSO Act and Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar in Sessions Case No. 6 of 2015 on 6th April 2016. He filed the present appeal before the High Court challenging his conviction.
Acts & Sections
- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012: 3, 4, 5, 6, 33(7)
- Indian Penal Code, 1860: 376, 228-A
