Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Mr. Sayyad Chand Agasapure, was convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Solapur, for offences under Section 376(2)(i)(n) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, and sentenced to 10 years rigorous imprisonment. The prosecution case was that the appellant had raped a 13-year-old girl, resulting in her pregnancy. The victim's father (PW-2) testified that on 10 March 2016, his daughter complained of stomach ache, and after medication, the pain subsided. On 12 March 2016, she again complained, and upon examination at the Civil Hospital, Solapur, she was found to be pregnant. The victim (PW-1) initially stated in her examination-in-chief that the appellant had raped her multiple times, but in cross-examination, she admitted that she had not named the appellant in her statement under Section 164 CrPC and that she had stated that she did not know who had raped her. The medical evidence (PW-4, Dr. Shobha Patil) confirmed pregnancy but could not confirm rape. The trial court convicted the appellant based on the victim's testimony. On appeal, the Bombay High Court examined the evidence and found that the victim's testimony was inconsistent and unreliable. The court noted that the victim had not named the appellant in her Section 164 statement and had given contradictory versions regarding the number of incidents. The medical evidence did not corroborate the rape. The court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and that the appellant was entitled to the benefit of doubt. The appeal was allowed, the conviction was set aside, and the appellant was acquitted. The interim application was disposed of as infructuous.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Rape - POCSO Act - Conviction based on sole testimony of prosecutrix - Reliability - The court examined whether the testimony of the minor victim was reliable and trustworthy. The victim's statements under Section 164 CrPC and in court were inconsistent regarding the number of incidents and the identity of the accused. The court held that the testimony of the prosecutrix must be of sterling quality to sustain a conviction, and in this case, the inconsistencies rendered it unreliable. (Paras 1-20) B) Evidence Law - Medical Evidence - Corroboration - The medical evidence did not corroborate the victim's claim of rape. The doctor's testimony indicated that the victim was pregnant but could not confirm rape. The court noted that the absence of corroboration, coupled with the unreliable testimony of the victim, weakened the prosecution case. (Paras 15-18) C) Criminal Law - Benefit of Doubt - Acquittal - The court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The inconsistencies in the victim's testimony and the lack of corroborative evidence entitled the appellant to the benefit of doubt. Consequently, the conviction was set aside and the appellant was acquitted. (Paras 19-20)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellant under Section 376(2)(i)(n) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, is sustainable based on the evidence on record.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. The impugned judgment and order dated 4th August 2017 passed by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Solapur, in Sessions Case No. 185 of 2016 is set aside. The appellant is acquitted of the offences punishable under Section 376(2)(i)(n) of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. The appellant is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other case. Interim Application No. 14 of 2021 is disposed of as infructuous.
Law Points
- Conviction based on sole testimony of prosecutrix must be reliable and trustworthy
- Inconsistencies in victim's testimony can lead to acquittal
- Medical evidence not corroborating prosecution case weakens the case
- Benefit of doubt must be given to accused when prosecution fails to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt
