Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Popat Navasu Bendkoli, was convicted by the Special Judge (POCSO), Nashik, for offences under Section 366 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 5(1) read with Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act). He was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for five years under Section 366 IPC and ten years under the POCSO Act. The case arose from an incident on 30 June 2016, when the victim, a minor aged about 16 years and 11 months, and her friend went for labour work in the appellant's jeep and did not return. The victim's father lodged an FIR on 2 July 2016. During investigation, the victim was found residing with the appellant at various villages. The trial court convicted the appellant based on the victim's testimony and other evidence. The appellant appealed to the Bombay High Court. The High Court examined the evidence, particularly the testimony of the victim (PW-1), who was declared hostile and contradicted her earlier statement. The court found that the victim admitted to going voluntarily with the appellant and that she did not support the prosecution case regarding kidnapping or sexual assault. The court also noted that the medical evidence did not conclusively prove sexual assault. The High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt due to inconsistencies in the victim's testimony. Consequently, the court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction, and acquitted the appellant of all charges.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Kidnapping - Section 366 IPC - Ingredients of kidnapping - The prosecution must prove that the accused took or enticed the minor away from lawful guardianship without consent. In the present case, the victim's testimony was inconsistent and she admitted to going voluntarily, thus the charge of kidnapping was not proved. (Paras 7-9) B) Criminal Law - POCSO Act - Aggravated Penetrative Sexual Assault - Sections 5(1) and 6 - Consent of minor - Even if the victim is a minor, the court must examine the evidence to see if sexual assault occurred. The victim's testimony was contradictory and she did not support the prosecution case, leading to acquittal. (Paras 10-12) C) Evidence Law - Appreciation of Evidence - Inconsistent Testimony - Benefit of Doubt - When the victim's testimony is full of contradictions and she resiles from her earlier statement, the accused is entitled to benefit of doubt. The court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. (Paras 13-15)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellant under Section 366 IPC and Section 5(1) read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act is sustainable in law based on the evidence on record.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. Conviction and sentence set aside. Appellant acquitted of all charges. Bail bonds cancelled.
Law Points
- Benefit of doubt
- Inconsistent testimony
- Minor discrepancies
- Age determination
- Consent in POCSO cases
- Kidnapping ingredients
