Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Mahesh S/o Kundlik Dhavare, was convicted by the Special Judge, Osmanabad in Special (POCSO) Case No.26 of 2015 for offences under Section 3 punishable under Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act) and Section 376(2)(i) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). He was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for ten years and a fine of Rs.5000/-. The appellant challenged his conviction before the Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench. The prosecution case was that the appellant committed aggravated penetrative sexual assault on a minor girl. However, the High Court found that the prosecution failed to prove the age of the victim beyond reasonable doubt. The victim's birth certificate was not produced, school records were not reliable, and medical evidence (ossification test) indicated the victim was above 18 years. Additionally, there were inconsistencies in the testimony of the victim and other prosecution witnesses, and material witnesses were not examined. The court held that the benefit of doubt must be given to the appellant. The appeal was allowed, the conviction and sentence were set aside, and the appellant was acquitted. The court directed that the appellant be set at liberty forthwith if not required in any other case.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - POCSO Act - Age of Victim - Proof - The prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the victim is a child (below 18 years) under Section 2(1)(d) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. In the absence of reliable evidence such as birth certificate or school records, and where medical evidence suggests age above 18, the benefit of doubt must go to the accused. (Paras 10-15) B) Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code - Rape - Section 376(2)(i) - Inconsistencies in Testimony - Where the victim's testimony is inconsistent with medical evidence and other witnesses, and material witnesses are not examined, the conviction cannot be sustained. The court held that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. (Paras 16-20) C) Criminal Procedure - Appeal - Acquittal - Benefit of Doubt - When the prosecution fails to establish the foundational fact of age, the accused is entitled to acquittal. The court allowed the appeal and set aside the conviction and sentence. (Paras 21-22)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the victim was a child below 18 years of age under the POCSO Act, and whether the evidence was sufficient to sustain conviction for aggravated penetrative sexual assault.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. Conviction and sentence set aside. Appellant acquitted. Bail bonds cancelled. Appellant to be set at liberty forthwith if not required in any other case.
Law Points
- Age of victim must be proved beyond reasonable doubt in POCSO cases
- Inconsistencies in prosecution evidence lead to benefit of doubt
- Failure to examine material witnesses weakens prosecution case
