Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Asif s/o Jakir Pathan, was convicted by the Special Judge/Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad in Special Case (POCSO) No.173 of 2016 for offences under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. The prosecution alleged that on 04.08.2016, the accused took a 6-year-old victim to his house and committed forcible sexual intercourse/penetrative sexual assault. The victim informed her mother immediately, and later her father lodged a report at the police station. The accused was arrested, and after investigation, a charge-sheet was filed. The trial court convicted the accused, leading to this appeal. The High Court examined the evidence, particularly the age of the victim and the consistency of the victim's testimony. The court noted that the school record showed the victim's date of birth as 01.01.2010, but the victim's mother stated the victim was 6 years old at the time of the incident, which would be consistent with a birth year of 2010. However, the victim's father stated the victim was 7 years old. The court found these inconsistencies significant. Additionally, the medical evidence did not support the allegation of penetrative sexual assault. The court held that the prosecution failed to prove the victim's age below 18 years and failed to prove the offence beyond reasonable doubt. Consequently, the court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction, and acquitted the accused.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - POCSO Act - Age of Victim - Proof - The prosecution must prove the age of the victim beyond reasonable doubt to sustain a conviction under the POCSO Act. In this case, the school record showed the victim's date of birth as 01.01.2010, but the victim's mother stated the victim was 6 years old at the time of incident, which would make her born in 2010. However, the victim's father stated the victim was 7 years old. The court found the evidence inconsistent and held that the prosecution failed to prove the victim's age below 18 years. (Paras 10-15) B) Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code - Section 376 - Rape - Inconsistencies in Testimony - The victim's testimony regarding the incident was inconsistent with the medical evidence and the testimony of other witnesses. The victim stated she was taken to the accused's house and subjected to forcible sexual intercourse, but the medical evidence did not support the allegation of penetrative sexual assault. The court held that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. (Paras 16-20) C) Criminal Law - POCSO Act - Section 4 - Penetrative Sexual Assault - Benefit of Doubt - The court held that the accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt when the prosecution fails to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The inconsistencies in the evidence and the failure to prove the victim's age led to the acquittal of the accused. (Paras 21-25)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the victim was below 18 years of age and that the accused committed penetrative sexual assault.
Final Decision
The appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentence imposed by the Special Judge/Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad in Special Case (POCSO) No.173 of 2016 on 11.12.2017 is set aside. The appellant is acquitted of the offences charged. His bail bonds stand cancelled.
Law Points
- Age of victim must be proved beyond reasonable doubt in POCSO cases
- Inconsistencies in victim's testimony can lead to acquittal
- Benefit of doubt when prosecution fails to prove case
