Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Satish s/o Bandu Ragde, was convicted by the Extra Joint Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur, in Special Child Protection Case No. 28 of 2017 for offences under Sections 354, 363, and 342 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act). The case arose from an incident on 14.12.2016, when the mother of the prosecutrix (a girl aged about 12 years) lodged a report alleging that the appellant took her daughter on the pretext of giving her a guava, pressed her breast, and attempted to remove her salwar. The mother claimed she reached the spot and rescued her daughter. The police registered Crime No. 405 of 2016 and filed a charge-sheet. The trial court framed charges under Sections 361, 354, 342, and 309 IPC and Section 8 POCSO Act, but convicted the appellant under Sections 354, 363, and 342 IPC and Section 8 POCSO Act, sentencing him to rigorous imprisonment for three years, two years, and six months respectively, with fines. The appellant appealed to the Bombay High Court. The High Court, after hearing arguments, found that the prosecution failed to prove the age of the victim beyond reasonable doubt, as no birth certificate or school record was produced. The testimony of the prosecutrix and her mother contained inconsistencies and contradictions. The court held that the conviction under POCSO Act could not be sustained without proof of age, and the evidence under IPC was not reliable. Consequently, the High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence, and acquitted the appellant.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - POCSO Act - Age of Victim - Proof - The prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the victim is a child (below 18 years) for the POCSO Act to apply. In the absence of reliable evidence regarding age, the conviction under POCSO Act cannot be sustained. (Paras 7-10) B) Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code - Sections 354, 363, 342 - Inconsistencies in Evidence - Benefit of Doubt - Where the testimony of the prosecutrix and other witnesses suffers from material inconsistencies and contradictions, the accused is entitled to benefit of doubt. The court found that the evidence of the mother (PW-1) and the prosecutrix (PW-2) was not consistent regarding the incident. (Paras 7-10) C) Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code - Section 363 - Kidnapping - Ingredients - To prove kidnapping from lawful guardianship, the prosecution must establish that the victim was taken away without consent of the lawful guardian. In this case, the mother's testimony that she saw the accused taking her daughter was not corroborated by other evidence. (Paras 7-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellant under Sections 354, 363, 342 IPC and Section 8 of the POCSO Act is sustainable in law.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. Conviction and sentence set aside. Appellant acquitted of all charges.
Law Points
- Age of victim must be proved beyond reasonable doubt for POCSO Act applicability
- Inconsistencies in prosecution evidence lead to benefit of doubt
- Conviction under IPC requires corroboration of victim's testimony
