Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Ajaykumar s/o Sambhunath Naik, was convicted by the Special Court, Chandrapur under Section 376(1) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for seven years. He appealed against the conviction. The prosecution case was that the victim, a minor girl aged about 16 years, went missing from her home on 9th July 2015. Her father lodged a missing complaint. On 19th August 2015, she was found with the appellant at Gaya, Bihar, and brought back. The victim's statement was recorded, and the appellant was arrested. The trial court convicted him. The High Court examined the evidence, noting that the victim's testimony was inconsistent and not corroborated by other evidence. The medical evidence indicated the victim was aged 18-19 years, casting doubt on the applicability of POCSO. The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. The appeal was allowed, the conviction set aside, and the appellant was acquitted.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Rape - Section 376(1) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Conviction based on sole testimony of victim - Inconsistencies in victim's statement and lack of corroboration - Held that conviction cannot be sustained when the victim's testimony is not wholly reliable and there are material contradictions (Paras 10-15). B) Criminal Law - Protection of Children from Sexual Offences - Section 4 POCSO Act, 2012 - Age of victim - Discrepancy in age determination - Medical evidence showing victim aged 18-19 years - Held that POCSO Act applies only if victim is below 18 years; benefit of doubt given to accused (Paras 16-18). C) Evidence Law - Appreciation of Evidence - Corroboration - Necessity of corroboration in sexual offences - Held that while corroboration is not mandatory, in cases where the victim's testimony is shaky, corroboration is essential (Paras 12-14).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellant under Section 376(1) of IPC and Section 4 of POCSO Act is sustainable in law based on the evidence on record.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. Conviction and sentence set aside. Appellant acquitted of all charges. Fine, if paid, to be refunded.
Law Points
- Conviction under Section 376(1) IPC and Section 4 POCSO Act requires corroboration of victim's testimony
- especially when inconsistencies exist
- age determination of victim is crucial for POCSO applicability
- benefit of doubt must be given to accused when prosecution fails to prove case beyond reasonable doubt.
