Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Prakash s/o Bhairuram Dhari, was convicted by the Sessions Court, Nagpur in Special Child Cri. Case No. 37/2018 for offences under Sections 363, 366(A), 376(2)(n)(i) of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 4 and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. The prosecution case was that the appellant kidnapped the prosecutrix, a minor, from her mother's custody on 21/10/2017 and committed rape on her. The appellant was sentenced to various terms of imprisonment, the longest being ten years under Section 6 of POCSO. The appellant appealed against the conviction. The High Court examined the evidence, particularly the age of the prosecutrix. The birth certificate (Exh. 13) showed her date of birth as 08/04/2001, but the court noted that the certificate was not proved as per law, and the medical evidence (ossification test) indicated her age to be between 16-18 years, which created doubt. The court also found inconsistencies in the prosecutrix's testimony and lack of corroboration. The court held that the prosecution failed to prove the age of the prosecutrix beyond reasonable doubt and that the evidence was not sufficient to sustain the conviction. The court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction, and acquitted the appellant, giving him the benefit of doubt.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Age Determination - Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt - Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, Sections 4, 6 - The court held that the age of the prosecutrix must be proved beyond reasonable doubt, especially when the accused faces serious charges. In this case, the birth certificate (Exh. 13) was not proved as per law, and the medical evidence suggested the prosecutrix was between 16-18 years, creating doubt. The court gave the benefit of doubt to the appellant. (Paras 7-10) B) Criminal Law - Rape - Corroboration of Testimony - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 376 - The court held that while the testimony of a prosecutrix in a rape case can be the sole basis for conviction, it must be reliable and inspire confidence. In this case, the prosecutrix's testimony was inconsistent and not corroborated by medical evidence or other witnesses, leading to acquittal. (Paras 11-15) C) Criminal Law - Kidnapping - Consent - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 363 - The court held that if the prosecutrix is a minor, consent is irrelevant. However, since the age was not proved, and the evidence showed she went voluntarily, the conviction under Section 363 was also set aside. (Paras 16-18)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellant under Sections 363, 366(A), 376(2)(n)(i) IPC and Sections 4 and 6 of POCSO Act is sustainable based on the evidence on record.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. Conviction and sentence set aside. Appellant acquitted of all charges. Bail bonds cancelled.
Law Points
- Age determination in POCSO cases
- standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt
- corroboration of prosecutrix testimony
- benefit of doubt
