Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Arun Popatrao Pingale, was convicted by the Special Judge, Pune, under Sections 376 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Sections 4 and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012, for allegedly raping a minor girl. The victim, then aged about 17 years, was a labourer at a poultry farm along with her parents. The prosecution alleged that in October 2014, on the day of Bhaubeej during Diwali, the appellant threatened the victim and committed rape on her. The trial court sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for 7 years under Section 376 IPC and 10 years under Section 6 POCSO Act, among others. The appellant appealed to the Bombay High Court. The High Court examined the evidence, including the testimony of the prosecutrix (PW-1), her mother (PW-2), and medical evidence. The court found that the prosecutrix's testimony was inconsistent and contradictory. She initially stated that the incident occurred in the morning when her parents were away, but later admitted that her mother was present at the poultry farm. The medical evidence (PW-4 doctor) indicated no signs of sexual assault, and the hymen was intact with a tear that could have been caused by other reasons. The court also noted that the victim did not disclose the incident to anyone for a long time, and the FIR was lodged after a delay of about 1.5 years. The court held that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. The conviction was set aside, and the appellant was acquitted of all charges. The court directed his release unless required in any other case.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Rape and Sexual Assault - Conviction based on unreliable testimony - Sections 376, 506 IPC, Sections 4, 6 POCSO Act - The appellant was convicted for rape and sexual assault of a minor. The High Court held that the prosecutrix's testimony was inconsistent, contradictory, and not corroborated by medical evidence. The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt, and the appellant was entitled to acquittal. (Paras 1-20) B) Evidence Law - Testimony of Prosecutrix - Corroboration - Medical Evidence - The court held that while the testimony of a prosecutrix in a rape case can be the sole basis for conviction, it must be reliable and trustworthy. In this case, the prosecutrix's evidence was found to be unreliable due to contradictions and lack of corroboration by medical evidence, which showed no signs of sexual assault. (Paras 15-20) C) Criminal Law - Benefit of Doubt - Acquittal - When the prosecution case is doubtful and the evidence is inconsistent, the accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt. The court set aside the conviction and ordered the appellant's release. (Paras 20-21)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellant under Sections 376 and 506 of IPC and Sections 4 and 6 of POCSO Act 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. Appellant to be released unless required in any other case.
Law Points
- Conviction under POCSO Act requires reliable and consistent testimony of prosecutrix
- Medical evidence must corroborate sexual assault
- Benefit of doubt when prosecution case is doubtful
- Section 376 IPC
- Section 506 IPC
- Section 4 POCSO Act
- Section 6 POCSO Act
