Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Mahesh Bhimraj Jadhav, was convicted by the Designated Court under the POCSO Act for the rape of a 17-year-old girl. The prosecution alleged that the appellant befriended the prosecutrix in March 2013, and in November 2013, he invited her to Titwala for his birthday, where he forced her into sexual intercourse at a hotel. The FIR was lodged on 30th April 2014, after a delay of several months. The prosecutrix testified that she was scared and could not resist, but also admitted to being in love with the appellant and meeting him willingly. The appellant's defense was that the relationship was consensual and that the prosecutrix was above 18 years of age. The High Court found several inconsistencies in the prosecutrix's testimony, including contradictions regarding her age, the date of the incident, and the nature of the relationship. The court noted that the delay in filing the FIR was not satisfactorily explained, and there was no corroboration from independent witnesses. The medical evidence did not support the prosecution's case, as no injuries were found. The court held that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt, and the appellant was entitled to the benefit of doubt. The appeal was allowed, the conviction and sentence were set aside, and the appellant was acquitted.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Rape - Consent - Age of Victim - Inconsistent Testimony - The appellant was convicted under Section 376 IPC r/w Section 6 POCSO Act for alleged rape of a 17-year-old girl. The prosecutrix's testimony was inconsistent regarding age, consent, and the incident itself. The court held that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt, and the appellant was entitled to acquittal. (Paras 1-29) B) Evidence Law - Corroboration - Delay in FIR - The FIR was lodged after a significant delay without proper explanation. The court noted that the delay and lack of corroboration from independent witnesses weakened the prosecution's case. (Paras 10-15) C) POCSO Act - Age Determination - The prosecutrix's age was not conclusively proved; school records showed her age as 17 years but there was no birth certificate. The court held that the age determination was not reliable. (Paras 16-20)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction under Section 376 IPC read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act is sustainable given inconsistencies in the prosecutrix's testimony and lack of corroborative evidence.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. Conviction and sentence set aside. Appellant acquitted of all charges. Bail bonds cancelled.
Law Points
- Consent
- Age of Victim
- Corroboration
- POCSO Act
- Section 376 IPC
- Inconsistent Testimony
- Benefit of Doubt
