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) IPC, Section 506 IPC, and Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act) and sentenced to life imprisonment. The case arose from an FIR lodged on 18.01.2013 by PW-5, the mother of the victim, alleging that the appellant had sexually assaulted her minor daughter, born on 16.08.2005, about seven days prior. The victim was studying in 2nd standard at the time. The prosecution examined several witnesses including the victim (PW-1), her mother (PW-5), and medical witnesses. The trial court convicted the appellant. In appeal, the Bombay High Court examined the evidence and found that the prosecution failed to prove the age of the victim beyond reasonable doubt. The birth certificate and school records were not properly proved as per the Indian Evidence Act. Additionally, the testimony of the victim and other witnesses contained material inconsistencies and improvements. The medical evidence did not corroborate the allegations. The court held that the prosecution did not establish the guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and the appellant was entitled to the benefit of doubt. The appeal was allowed, the conviction and sentence were set aside, and the appellant was directed to be released forthwith unless required in any other case.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Rape and POCSO - Age of Victim - Proof - Prosecution failed to prove that the victim was below 18 years at the time of incident - The birth certificate and school records were not properly proved - Held that the age of the victim is a crucial ingredient for an offence under Section 4 of POCSO Act and Section 376(2)(i) IPC, and its non-establishment entitles the accused to acquittal (Paras 10-15). B) Criminal Law - Rape and POCSO - Inconsistencies in Evidence - Benefit of Doubt - The testimony of the victim and other witnesses contained material contradictions and improvements - The medical evidence did not support the prosecution case - Held that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and the appellant is entitled to acquittal (Paras 16-25).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the victim was a minor and that the appellant committed the alleged offences.
Final Decision
Appeal 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. He be released forthwith unless required in any other case.
Law Points
- Age of victim must be proved beyond reasonable doubt
- Inconsistencies in prosecution case lead to acquittal
- Benefit of doubt to accused
