Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Omkar Dattatraya Dangat, was convicted by the Special Court under Sections 363, 366A, 376(2)(n) of the Indian Penal Code read with Sections 4 and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO) in Special Sessions Case No.371 of 2015. He was sentenced to 10 years imprisonment. The appellant filed an appeal against his conviction. The case arose from an FIR lodged by the victim's father on 21.08.2015 at Chaturshrungi Police Station, alleging that the appellant kidnapped and raped his minor daughter. The appellant was arrested on 23.08.2015 and had undergone 8 years and 10 days of imprisonment as of the date of the appeal. The appeal was admitted on 10.02.2020. The appellant moved an interim application for suspension of sentence and bail, which was heard by Justice Prakash Naik. In the order dated 26.04.2022, the court noted that the victim had admitted in her evidence that there was a friendship between her and the accused which converted into a love affair, and that the physical relationship was maintained against her will. However, the court observed that the prosecution relied on a birth certificate produced by the victim, but the source of the document was not established as no person from the issuing office was examined. Considering the period of incarceration (6 years and 8 months at that time), the court granted bail. The main legal issues were whether the victim was a minor at the time of the incident and whether the appellant had committed the offences. The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the age of the victim beyond reasonable doubt because the birth certificate was not properly proved. Additionally, the victim's own testimony indicated a consensual relationship. Consequently, the court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction, and acquitted the appellant.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Rape - Age of Victim - Proof of Age - Prosecution failed to prove victim's minority as birth certificate was not proved by examining issuing authority - Held that age must be established beyond reasonable doubt for POCSO offences (Paras 2, 10-15). B) Criminal Law - Consent - Minor's Consent - Irrelevant under POCSO if age proved - But where age not proved, consent becomes relevant - Victim admitted friendship and love affair with accused - Held that physical relationship was consensual (Paras 2, 16-20). C) Criminal Law - Acquittal - Benefit of Doubt - Inconsistent evidence regarding age and consent - Appellant acquitted on benefit of doubt (Paras 21-25).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellant under Sections 363, 366A, 376(2)(n) IPC and Sections 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act is sustainable in law, particularly when the age of the victim is disputed and the evidence regarding consent is inconsistent.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. Conviction and sentence set aside. Appellant acquitted of all charges.
Law Points
- Age of victim must be proved beyond reasonable doubt
- Birth certificate not proved by examining issuing authority
- Consent of minor is irrelevant under POCSO but age must be established
- Acquittal on benefit of doubt when evidence inconsistent
