Case Note & Summary
The case involves an appeal against the conviction of Ajay Keshav @ Kiran Malekar for offences under Section 376(2)(f)(i) of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 4 and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. The appellant was the paternal uncle of the victim, a four-year-old girl. The prosecution alleged that on 1 April 2018, while the victim's mother was away for a walk, the accused sexually assaulted the victim. The next day, the mother noticed redness and injury on the victim's private parts, and the victim disclosed that the accused had pressed her mouth, removed her clothes, and put his private part on her. The trial court convicted the appellant and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for ten years under Section 6 of POCSO Act and seven years under Section 4 of POCSO Act. The High Court, on appeal, examined the evidence and found several inconsistencies. The victim's testimony in court was not consistent with her earlier statement to her mother. The medical evidence showed no signs of penetration, and the doctor opined that the injury could be due to other reasons. The mother's testimony also had contradictions regarding the timing of the incident. The court held that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. The benefit of doubt was given to the appellant, and the conviction was set aside. The appellant was acquitted of all charges.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Rape of Minor - Benefit of Doubt - Inconsistent Evidence - The appellant was convicted for raping his four-year-old niece. The High Court found material inconsistencies between the victim's testimony, the informant's evidence, and medical evidence. The medical report did not support penetration. The court held that the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt and acquitted the appellant. (Paras 1-22) B) Evidence Law - Corroboration - Child Witness - The victim's testimony was not corroborated by medical evidence or other independent witnesses. The court noted that the victim's statement to her mother was not consistent with the medical findings. Held that in the absence of corroboration, conviction cannot be sustained. (Paras 10-18) C) POCSO Act - Sections 4 and 6 - Aggravated Penetrative Sexual Assault - The court examined the definition of penetrative sexual assault under Section 3 of POCSO Act and found that medical evidence did not indicate any penetration. The conviction under Section 6 was set aside. (Paras 15-20)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellant under Section 376(2)(f)(i) IPC and Sections 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act is sustainable in light of inconsistencies in prosecution evidence and lack of corroboration.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. Conviction and sentence set aside. Appellant acquitted of all charges. Bail bonds cancelled.
Law Points
- Benefit of doubt
- Inconsistent evidence
- Corroboration of victim testimony
- Medical evidence contradiction
- POCSO Act
- Section 376 IPC
