Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Siddharth @ Bollywood S/o Bapurao Meshram, was convicted by the Special Judge, Wardha for offences under Section 376(2)(i) and Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO Act), 2012. He was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life and fine for the rape charge, and two years rigorous imprisonment for criminal intimidation. The victim was a minor girl born on 16.08.2005, studying in 2nd standard at the time of the alleged incident on 18.01.2013. The prosecution case was that the appellant, residing in the same locality, lured the victim with chocolate, took her to his house, removed her undergarments, and committed penetrative sexual assault. The FIR was lodged by the victim's mother (PW-5) based on information from neighbours. The trial court convicted the appellant. In appeal, the High Court examined the evidence. The victim (PW-1) testified but her testimony was inconsistent with the FIR and her earlier statements. She stated the incident occurred 7 days before the FIR, but the FIR mentioned it happened on the same day. Medical evidence (PW-3 doctor) showed no signs of penetration or injury, and the hymen was intact. The doctor opined that there was no evidence of sexual assault. The neighbours (Jangle Madam, Kale bai) were not examined. The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. The inconsistencies in the victim's testimony, lack of corroboration, and absence of medical evidence led the court to allow the appeal. The conviction and sentence were set aside, and the appellant was acquitted of all charges.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Rape and Sexual Offences - Appreciation of Evidence - Inconsistencies - The prosecution case suffered from material inconsistencies between the FIR, victim's testimony, and medical evidence regarding the date, time, and manner of the alleged incident - The victim's testimony was not corroborated by independent witnesses or medical evidence - Held that conviction cannot be based on such unreliable evidence (Paras 10-25). B) Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 - Section 4 - Penetrative Sexual Assault - Medical Evidence - The medical examination of the victim did not show any signs of penetration or injury - The doctor opined that there was no evidence of sexual assault - Held that in the absence of medical corroboration, the charge under Section 4 POCSO Act is not proved (Paras 18-22). C) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 376(2)(i) - Rape of a Minor - Age of Victim - The victim's age was proved to be below 16 years based on school records - However, the prosecution failed to prove the act of rape beyond reasonable doubt due to inconsistencies - Held that the benefit of doubt must be given to the appellant (Paras 12-16).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellant under Sections 376(2)(i) and 506 IPC and Section 4 of the POCSO Act is sustainable based on the evidence on record.
Final Decision
The appeal is allowed. The judgment and order dated 15.11.2016 passed by the Special Judge, Wardha is set aside. The appellant is acquitted of all charges. His bail bonds stand cancelled.
Law Points
- Appreciation of evidence in sexual offences
- Corroboration of victim testimony
- Standard of proof in criminal cases
- Age determination in POCSO cases
- Inconsistencies in prosecution case
