Case Note & Summary
The case involves two criminal appeals filed by Gautam Chandrakant Khairnar and Bhaiyya @ Sharad Chandrakant Khairnar against their conviction under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act) and the Indian Penal Code. The appellants were convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Amalner in Sessions Case No. 15 of 2014 vide judgment dated 17/6/2015. The appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 509 of 2015 (Bhaiyya) was convicted for aggravated penetrative sexual assault under Section 6 of POCSO Act and sentenced to life imprisonment and fine, and also for criminal intimidation under Section 506 IPC. The appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 508 of 2015 (Gautam) was convicted for sexual assault under Section 12 of POCSO Act and sentenced to 3 years RI and fine. The victim, a 17-year-old girl, alleged that on 12th May 2014, Bhaiyya committed rape on her and Gautam attempted to remove her clothes. The trial court convicted both appellants. On appeal, the High Court examined the evidence, including the victim's testimony, medical evidence, and other witnesses. The court found the victim's testimony to be inconsistent, improbable, and lacking corroboration. The medical evidence did not support the allegations of rape. The court held that the presumption under Section 29 of POCSO Act is rebuttable and the prosecution failed to prove the guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Consequently, the court allowed both appeals, set aside the convictions, and acquitted the appellants.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - POCSO Act - Aggravated Penetrative Sexual Assault - Section 6 of POCSO Act - Conviction set aside - The victim's testimony was found to be inconsistent, improbable, and lacking corroboration; the medical evidence did not support the allegations; the court held that the presumption under Section 29 of POCSO Act is rebuttable and the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt (Paras 1-30). B) Criminal Law - POCSO Act - Sexual Assault - Section 12 of POCSO Act - Conviction set aside - The appellant was convicted for sexual assault but the evidence showed only an attempt to remove the victim's clothes, which does not constitute sexual assault under Section 12; the court held that the prosecution failed to establish the ingredients of the offence (Paras 1-30). C) Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code - Criminal Intimidation - Section 506 of IPC - Conviction set aside - The allegation of threat was not proved beyond reasonable doubt as the victim's testimony was inconsistent and the threat was not corroborated by any independent evidence (Paras 1-30).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellants under Sections 6 and 12 of the POCSO Act and Section 506 of IPC is sustainable based on the evidence on record.
Final Decision
Both appeals are allowed. The conviction and sentence of the appellants in Sessions Case No. 15 of 2014 are set aside. The appellants are acquitted of all charges. Their bail bonds stand cancelled.
Law Points
- Presumption under Section 29 of POCSO Act is rebuttable
- Conviction cannot be based on sole testimony of victim if it is inconsistent and improbable
- Age determination under POCSO Act requires strict proof
- Benefit of doubt must be given to accused when prosecution story is doubtful
