Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Mahadev Narayan Bhusari, was convicted by the Special Judge, Warora, in Special (POCSO) Case No.10/2015 for offences under Sections 341, 354-A, 354-D of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 11(i) and 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act). The incident allegedly occurred on 11.02.2015 at about 5.00 p.m. when the victim, a 9th standard student, was returning home from school on her bicycle. The appellant allegedly came from behind on his motorcycle, obstructed her, and said "I love you very much and made demand for sex" while trying to catch her hand. The victim screamed, and Raju Khangar (PW3) came to her rescue. The victim narrated the incident to her mother at 7.00 p.m., and a complaint was lodged the next day. The trial court convicted the appellant, sentencing him to rigorous imprisonment for two years under POCSO Act and Section 354-D IPC, and one month for Section 341 IPC. The appellant appealed to the Bombay High Court. The High Court analyzed the evidence and found material inconsistencies. The victim's testimony contradicted that of her mother and PW3 regarding the time of incident and the sequence of events. The court noted that the victim did not report the incident to her mother immediately upon reaching home, and the mother's testimony was inconsistent. PW3, the alleged rescuer, stated that he saw the appellant and victim talking but did not hear any demand for sex or see any attempt to catch hold. 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.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Acquittal - Benefit of Doubt - Inconsistent Evidence - The appellant was convicted for offences under IPC and POCSO Act based on testimony of victim and witnesses. The High Court found material inconsistencies and contradictions in the prosecution evidence, particularly regarding the time of incident, presence of witnesses, and conduct of victim. Held that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt, and the appellant is entitled to acquittal (Paras 1-20). B) POCSO Act - Sexual Assault - Sections 11(i) and 12 - Sexual Intent - The victim alleged that the appellant made a demand for sex and tried to catch her hand. However, the court noted that the victim did not report the incident immediately, and the evidence of independent witness (PW3) contradicted the victim's version. Held that the prosecution did not establish sexual intent or sexual assault as defined under the POCSO Act (Paras 10-18). C) Indian Penal Code - Stalking - Section 354-D - The victim claimed that the appellant followed her on a motorcycle. However, the court found that the appellant's presence at the spot was not unusual and there was no evidence of repeated following or monitoring. Held that the ingredients of stalking were not made out (Paras 15-18).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant committed offences under Sections 341, 354-A, 354-D of IPC and Sections 11(i) and 12 of POCSO Act.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. The judgment and order dated 17.03.2016 passed by the Special Judge, Warora in Special (POCSO) Case No.10/2015 is set aside. The appellant is acquitted of all charges. His bail bonds stand cancelled.
Law Points
- Acquittal
- Inconsistent evidence
- Benefit of doubt
- Sexual intent
- POCSO Act
- Indian Penal Code
- Stalking
- Outraging modesty
- Wrongful restraint
