Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Praful Maroti Bagde, was convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Chandrapur, in Special (POCSO) Case No. 92/2018 for offences under Sections 376(2)(i)(j) and 450 IPC and Sections 4 and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. The prosecution alleged that on 07/10/2018, the accused entered the victim's house, locked the door from inside, and committed rape on the victim, who was alone. The victim's mother lodged a report the same day. The trial court convicted the accused based on the victim's testimony and other evidence. The accused appealed to the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench. The High Court examined the evidence and found that the prosecution failed to prove that the victim was below 18 years of age, as the birth certificate was not properly proved and medical evidence indicated age around 18 years. Additionally, the victim's testimony was inconsistent and not corroborated by medical evidence or other witnesses. The mother's testimony contradicted the victim's version. The High Court held that the prosecution did not prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and allowed the appeal, setting aside the conviction and acquitting the accused.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Rape and Aggravated Penetrative Sexual Assault - Age of Victim - Sections 376(2)(i)(j) IPC, Sections 4 and 6 POCSO Act - The prosecution failed to prove that the victim was below 18 years of age as the birth certificate was not proved and the medical evidence suggested age around 18 years - Held that the benefit of doubt must be given to the accused regarding age (Paras 10-12). B) Criminal Law - Rape and Aggravated Penetrative Sexual Assault - Corroboration of Testimony - Sections 376(2)(i)(j) IPC, Sections 4 and 6 POCSO Act - The testimony of the victim was inconsistent and not corroborated by medical evidence or other witnesses - The mother's testimony contradicted the victim's version - Held that conviction cannot be based on such unreliable evidence (Paras 13-15). C) Criminal Law - Rape and Aggravated Penetrative Sexual Assault - Benefit of Doubt - Sections 376(2)(i)(j) IPC, Sections 4 and 6 POCSO Act - Due to material inconsistencies and lack of proof of age, the accused is entitled to acquittal - Held that the appeal is allowed and the conviction is set aside (Paras 16-18).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellant under Sections 376(2)(i)(j) and 450 IPC and Sections 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act is sustainable based on the evidence on record.
Final Decision
The appeal is allowed. The judgment and order of conviction in Special (POCSO) Case No. 92/2018 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Chandrapur is set aside. The appellant is acquitted of all charges. His bail bonds stand cancelled.
Law Points
- Age determination in POCSO cases
- Corroboration of victim testimony
- Benefit of doubt
- Inconsistencies in prosecution evidence
