Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Imran Shamim Khan, was convicted by the Special Judge under the POCSO Act, Gr. Bombay in Sessions Case No. 923 of 2013 for offences under Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act) and Section 506(II) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). He was sentenced to 10 years rigorous imprisonment for the POCSO offence and 1 year for the criminal intimidation offence. The case arose from a complaint lodged on 20 July 2013 by one Mrs. Meena Fernandes, the grandmother of the victim, alleging that her 9-year-old granddaughter had been sexually assaulted by the appellant, who was a neighbour. The victim initially disclosed the incident to her grandmother, leading to the registration of Crime No. 215 of 2013. During the trial, the prosecution examined five witnesses. However, the victim (PW1) and the complainant (PW2) both turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case. The victim gave evasive answers and resiled from her earlier statement recorded under Section 164 CrPC. The medical certificate (Exh. 23) indicated that the victim's hymen was ruptured, but the history of sexual assault given to the doctor was not proved as the victim and grandmother did not testify to it. The court noted that implicit reliance could not be placed on the victim's evidence as she was declared hostile. The only other evidence was the medical report, which did not conclusively link the appellant to the offence. The court held that in the absence of any substantive evidence from the victim or any other witness, the conviction could not be sustained. The appeal was allowed, the conviction and sentence were set aside, and the appellant was acquitted.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Hostile Witness - Corroboration - Medical Evidence - Conviction under Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and Section 506(II) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 - The victim and the first informant turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case. The medical certificate showed a ruptured hymen but the history given to the doctor was not proved. The court held that in the absence of any substantive evidence from the victim or any other witness, the conviction cannot be sustained solely on the basis of medical evidence which does not conclusively prove sexual assault by the accused. The appeal was allowed and the appellant was acquitted. (Paras 1-6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction under Section 6 of the POCSO Act and Section 506(II) IPC can be sustained when the victim and key witnesses turn hostile and the only corroborative evidence is medical evidence of a ruptured hymen without proof of recent sexual assault.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. Conviction and sentence set aside. Appellant acquitted of all charges.
Law Points
- Hostile witness
- Corroboration of medical evidence
- Conviction based on sole testimony
- Section 6 POCSO Act
- Section 506 IPC
