Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Manoj s/o Harihar Shukla, was convicted by the Special Judge (POCSO), Ahmednagar, in Special (POCSO) Case No.199 of 2017 for offences under Section 376(2)(i), 377, and 342 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. The prosecution alleged that on 11.05.2017 at about 10:30 pm, the appellant took a six-and-a-half-year-old victim into his room in a chawl, locked the door, and committed aggravated penetrative sexual assault by inserting his penis into her anus. The victim's mother, the first informant, found the victim in the appellant's room with blood-stained halfpant and bleeding from the anus. The FIR was lodged the next day on 12.05.2017. The trial court convicted the appellant based on the victim's testimony and other circumstantial evidence. On appeal, the Bombay High Court at Aurangabad examined the evidence. The court noted that the victim's testimony had inconsistencies and was not corroborated by medical evidence, which showed no injuries or signs of recent sexual assault. The delay in lodging the FIR was not satisfactorily explained. The court also observed that the shawl recovered from the appellant's room was not blood-stained and the chemical analysis did not support the prosecution. The court held that the presumption under Section 29 of the POCSO Act was rebutted by the lack of credible evidence. Consequently, the court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction, and acquitted the appellant.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - POCSO Act - Aggravated Penetrative Sexual Assault - Section 6, POCSO Act, 2012 - Conviction set aside due to inconsistencies in victim's testimony, lack of corroboration by medical evidence, and unexplained delay in lodging FIR - Held that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt (Paras 1-20). B) Evidence Law - Child Witness - Testimony of Victim - Credibility - The testimony of a child victim must be reliable and corroborated by other evidence; minor inconsistencies may be overlooked but material contradictions affect the case - Held that the victim's testimony was not wholly reliable (Paras 10-15). C) Criminal Procedure - Delay in FIR - Section 154, CrPC - Delay of one day in lodging FIR not fatal if properly explained, but in this case the explanation was unsatisfactory - Held that the delay created doubt (Paras 8-9).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellant under Section 6 of the POCSO Act and Sections 376(2)(i), 377, and 342 of the IPC is sustainable based on the evidence on record.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. Conviction and sentence set aside. Appellant acquitted of all charges. Bail bonds cancelled.
Law Points
- Presumption under Section 29 of POCSO Act is rebuttable
- conviction requires corroboration of victim's testimony
- delay in FIR must be explained
- medical evidence must support prosecution case
