Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Maula s/o Babu Kotwal, was convicted by the Special Judge, Osmanabad in Special (POCSO) Case No.21 of 2015 for offences under Sections 363, 366(A), 376(2)(i) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. The prosecution alleged that on 27-05-2015, the appellant kidnapped the victim, a 15-year-old girl, from her father's custody and had sexual intercourse with her. The victim was found with the appellant at Solapur Railway Station after about 15 days. The trial court convicted the appellant based on the victim's testimony and other evidence. The appellant challenged the conviction before the Bombay High Court. The High Court examined the evidence and found several inconsistencies in the victim's statements. The victim initially stated that she went willingly with the appellant, but later claimed she was taken forcibly. The medical evidence did not confirm sexual intercourse, and the FSL report was inconclusive. The court noted that the victim's testimony was not corroborated by independent witnesses and that the prosecution failed to prove the age of the victim conclusively. The court held that the benefit of doubt must be given to the appellant and set aside the conviction, acquitting the appellant of all charges.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Rape and Kidnapping - Benefit of Doubt - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 363, 366(A), 376(2)(i); Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, Section 6 - Appeal against conviction for kidnapping and rape of a minor - Victim's testimony found inconsistent and unreliable; medical evidence did not support rape; no independent corroboration - Held that prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, hence accused entitled to acquittal (Paras 1-20).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellant under Sections 363, 366(A), 376(2)(i) of IPC and Section 6 of POCSO Act is sustainable based on the evidence on record.
Final Decision
The appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentence imposed by the learned Special Judge, Osmanabad in Special (POCSO) Case No.21 of 2015 dated 25-07-2017 is set aside. The appellant is acquitted of all charges. His bail bonds stand cancelled.
Law Points
- Benefit of doubt
- Inconsistencies in testimony
- Lack of corroboration
- Age determination
- Consent of minor
- POCSO Act
- Indian Penal Code
Case Details
2020 LawText (BOM) (09) 9
Criminal Appeal No.906 of 2018
Mr. S. S. Kazi (for appellant), Mr. S. B. Pulkundwar (APP for respondent)
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal appeal against conviction for kidnapping and rape of a minor under IPC and POCSO Act.
Remedy Sought
Appellant sought acquittal by challenging the conviction order dated 25-07-2017 passed by the Special Judge, Osmanabad.
Filing Reason
Appellant was convicted for kidnapping and raping a 15-year-old girl; he appealed on grounds of insufficient evidence and inconsistencies.
Previous Decisions
The Special Judge, Osmanabad convicted the appellant on 25-07-2017 in Special (POCSO) Case No.21 of 2015.
Issues
Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt.
Whether the victim's testimony was reliable and corroborated.
Whether the age of the victim was conclusively established.
Submissions/Arguments
Appellant argued that the victim's testimony was inconsistent and unreliable; medical evidence did not support rape; no independent corroboration; benefit of doubt should be given.
Respondent argued that the victim's testimony was credible and consistent; medical evidence and FSL report supported the prosecution case; conviction was proper.
Ratio Decidendi
In a criminal case, the prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Inconsistencies in the victim's testimony, lack of corroboration, and inconclusive medical evidence create reasonable doubt, entitling the accused to acquittal.
Judgment Excerpts
Present appeal has been filed by the accused challenging his conviction by learned Special Judge, Osmanabad in Special (POCSO) Case No.21 of 2015, dated 25-07-2017.
The victim left the house at about 7.30 p.m. on 27-05-2015 without informing anything to the family members.
After the police brought the victim to police station, her statement was recorded, and when it was revealed that the accused had sexual intercourse with her, the offence under Section 376 (2) (i) of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 6 of POCSO Act came to be added.
Procedural History
FIR registered on 28-05-2015 under Sections 363, 366(A) IPC. Investigation led to addition of Sections 376(2)(i) IPC and Section 6 POCSO Act. Charge-sheet filed. Trial resulted in conviction on 25-07-2017. Appellant filed Criminal Appeal No.906 of 2018 before the Bombay High Court, which was decided on 09-09-2020.
Acts & Sections
- Indian Penal Code, 1860: 363, 366(A), 376(2)(i)
- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012: 6
