Case Note & Summary
The State of Goa appealed against the acquittal of Chandrakant @ Chandru Jaiswar by the Children's Court, Panaji, in Special Case No. 03/2017 under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO) and the Indian Penal Code. The case involved allegations of sexual assault on a minor boy. The prosecution examined four witnesses: the victim (PW-1), his mother (PW-2), and two NGO workers (PW-3 and PW-4). The trial court acquitted the accused, disbelieving the victim's testimony as tutored and contradictory, and disbelieving the mother's testimony due to her involvement in prostitution. The State argued that the child's evidence was not shaken in cross-examination and that the mother's character should not affect credibility. The High Court, per Smt. M.S. Jawalkar J., held that the trial court's findings were plausible and not perverse. The child's testimony showed signs of tutoring, and the mother's evidence was unreliable. The court noted that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. The appeal was dismissed, and the acquittal was upheld.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Child Witness - Corroboration - Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, Sections 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14, 19, 21, 23, 24, 29, 30, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45 - The court held that the testimony of a child victim, though material, requires careful scrutiny and corroboration if there are indications of tutoring or inconsistency. In this case, the child's evidence was found to be tutored and contradictory, and the mother's testimony was disbelieved due to her involvement in prostitution. The acquittal was upheld as the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. (Paras 2-10)
B) Criminal Law - Acquittal Appeal - Interference - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Section 378 - The court reiterated that in an appeal against acquittal, the appellate court should not interfere unless the findings are perverse or unreasonable. The trial court's appreciation of evidence was plausible, and no interference was warranted. (Paras 2-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the acquittal of the respondent under the POCSO Act and IPC was perverse and liable to be set aside, given the evidence of the child victim and other witnesses.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the order of acquittal passed by the Children's Court, Panaji, on 28.01.2019 in Special Case No. 03/2017.
Law Points
- Child witness testimony
- Corroboration requirement
- Tutored witness
- POCSO Act
- Acquittal appeal
- Appreciation of evidence
Case Details
2020 LawText (BOM) (08) 34
Criminal Appeal No. 5 of 2020
M.S. Sonak, Smt. M.S. Jawalkar
Mr. S.R. Rivankar (Public Prosecutor for Appellant), Mr. Vibhav R. Amonkar (Advocate for Respondent)
State, Through Police Inspector (major), Vasco Police Station, Vasco, Goa
Chandrakant @ Chandru Jaiswar, s/o Lalman Jaiswar
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal appeal against acquittal under POCSO Act and IPC
Remedy Sought
State sought reversal of acquittal and conviction of respondent
Filing Reason
State challenged the acquittal order dated 28.01.2019 by Children's Court, Panaji
Previous Decisions
Children's Court acquitted the respondent in Special Case No. 03/2017 on 28.01.2019
Issues
Whether the trial court erred in disbelieving the testimony of the child victim (PW-1) and his mother (PW-2)
Whether the acquittal was perverse and liable to be set aside
Submissions/Arguments
Appellant (State): The child victim's testimony was not shaken in cross-examination; being a child, his testimony is material unless tutored or false. The mother's testimony was disbelieved only because she was involved in prostitution, which is irrelevant. PW-3 and PW-4 (NGO workers) supported the case.
Respondent (Accused): The trial court correctly appreciated the evidence; the child was tutored and contradictions exist; the mother's evidence is unreliable; the acquittal should be upheld.
Ratio Decidendi
In an appeal against acquittal, the appellate court should not interfere unless the findings are perverse or unreasonable. The trial court's appreciation of evidence, including the finding that the child victim's testimony was tutored and the mother's testimony was unreliable, was plausible and not perverse. The prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt.
Judgment Excerpts
The present Appeal is preferred by the State against the order of acquittal vide impugned judgment dated 28.01.2019 by the Children's Court, Panaji, Goa in Special Case No. 03/2017.
The present Appeal is preferred mainly on the ground that the learned Children's Court has erred in disbelieving the evidence of PW-1 i.e. the victim, whose evidence is not shaken in cross examination.
Procedural History
The Children's Court, Panaji, acquitted the respondent in Special Case No. 03/2017 on 28.01.2019. The State appealed against this acquittal in the High Court of Bombay at Goa, which was registered as Criminal Appeal No. 5 of 2020. The High Court heard the appeal and dismissed it on 04.08.2020.
Acts & Sections
- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012: Sections 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14, 19, 21, 23, 24, 29, 30, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45
- Indian Penal Code, 1860:
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Section 378
