Case Note & Summary
The appellant, a 17-year-old boy at the time of the alleged offence, was convicted by the Special Court under the POCSO Act and IPC for attempting to rape a 4½-year-old girl. The prosecution case was that on 11-08-2017, the appellant took the victim and her sister to his house under the pretext of giving chocolates and committed the offence. The FIR was lodged on 13-08-2017, with no explanation for the delay. The victim's mother (PW-1) did not witness the incident, and the victim herself (PW-8), aged 6 at trial, gave a vague testimony without describing the specific acts. The appellant was treated as an adult based on a psychiatric report, but the procedure under the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 was not properly followed. The High Court found that the Special Court failed to conduct a mandatory preliminary assessment by the Juvenile Justice Board, and the evidence was insufficient to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The appeal was allowed, the conviction and sentence were set aside, and the appellant was acquitted.
Headnote
A) Juvenile Justice - Preliminary Assessment - Section 15, Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 - The Special Court failed to conduct a proper preliminary assessment by the Juvenile Justice Board before trying the appellant as an adult, which is mandatory under the Act. The Board's report was not placed on record, and the trial proceeded without following the prescribed procedure, vitiating the conviction. (Paras 4, 10-12) B) Evidence - Child Witness - Corroboration - The testimony of the 6-year-old victim (PW-8) was vague and lacked specific details of the alleged sexual assault. The mother (PW-1) did not witness the incident, and there was no medical or other corroborative evidence. The delay of two days in lodging the FIR was unexplained, creating doubt. Held that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. (Paras 5-9) C) Sentencing - Juvenile Offender - Section 18, Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 - The sentence of 10 years rigorous imprisonment imposed on the appellant, who was a child-in-conflict with law, was disproportionate and not in accordance with the rehabilitative philosophy of the Juvenile Justice Act. The Special Court ought to have considered the appellant's age and the possibility of reform. (Paras 4, 13-14)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellant, who was a child-in-conflict with law at the time of the offence, under the POCSO Act and IPC is sustainable in law, especially when the procedure under the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 for trying a juvenile as an adult was not properly followed, and whether the evidence on record is sufficient to prove the guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Final Decision
The appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentence imposed by the Special Court (POCSO), Jalna in Special Case (Child) No.69 of 2018 are set aside. The appellant is acquitted of all charges. His bail bonds stand cancelled.
Law Points
- Juvenile Justice Act
- 2015
- Section 15
- Section 18
- POCSO Act
- 2012
- Section 6
- Indian Penal Code
- Section 376(2)(i)
- Section 511
- delay in lodging FIR
- child witness testimony
- corroboration
- sentencing of juveniles
