Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Ramchandra Thangappan Aachari, was convicted by the Special Judge, Greater Mumbai, under Sections 4, 6, and 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act) for sexually assaulting a 15-year-old victim. The prosecution case was that on 12 July 2017, an NGO received a call about the appellant wrongfully confining and sexually abusing the victim. The police rescued the victim from the appellant's premises. The victim was examined and her statement recorded. The trial court convicted the appellant and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for ten years and a fine. The appellant appealed to the Bombay High Court. The High Court heard the appeal and perused the entire record. The court noted that the victim's testimony was inconsistent and unreliable. The victim initially claimed she was kidnapped and raped, but later stated she went voluntarily and was not raped. The medical evidence did not support sexual assault. The court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The presumption under Section 29 of the POCSO Act was rebutted by the defence. The court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction, and acquitted the appellant. The appellant was ordered to be released forthwith unless required in any other case.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - POCSO Act - Conviction based on unreliable testimony - Sections 4, 6, 8, 29 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 - The appellant was convicted for penetrative sexual assault, aggravated penetrative sexual assault, and sexual assault of a minor. The High Court held that the victim's testimony was inconsistent and not corroborated by medical evidence or other witnesses. The presumption under Section 29 was rebutted by the defence. The appeal was allowed and conviction set aside. (Paras 1-8) B) Evidence Law - Testimony of Victim - Reliability - The court found that the victim's evidence was contradictory and unreliable, as she initially stated she was kidnapped and raped but later claimed she went voluntarily and was not raped. The court held that such inconsistent testimony cannot form the basis of conviction. (Paras 5-7) C) Criminal Law - Benefit of Doubt - Acquittal - The court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The appellant was entitled to the benefit of doubt and was acquitted of all charges. (Para 8)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellant under Sections 4, 6, and 8 of the POCSO Act is sustainable based on the evidence on record.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. Conviction and sentence set aside. Appellant acquitted of all charges. Appellant to be released forthwith unless required in any other case.
Law Points
- Presumption under Section 29 of POCSO Act is rebuttable
- conviction cannot be based on unreliable testimony
- benefit of doubt must be given when prosecution fails to prove case beyond reasonable doubt
