Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Kawadu Madhukar Atram, was convicted by the Special Judge and Additional Sessions Judge, Chandrapur in Special (POCSO) Case 70 of 2016 for offences under Section 450 IPC (lurking house-trespass or house-breaking in order to commit an offence punishable with imprisonment for life) and under Sections 376(1) and 376(2)(i) IPC read with Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act). He was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for five years under Section 450 IPC and ten years under the rape and POCSO charges. The prosecution case was that the appellant, a friend of the victim's brother, forcibly raped the 14-year-old prosecutrix at her home when she was alone. The victim reported the incident two months later after her mother noticed she had missed her periods. The appellant appealed against the conviction. The High Court examined the evidence, particularly the testimony of the prosecutrix (PW2) and the medical evidence. The court found significant inconsistencies in the prosecutrix's version regarding the date and time of the incident. The prosecutrix initially stated the incident occurred on a Friday at 3:00 p.m., but later could not specify the date. The court also noted that the prosecutrix's mother (PW3) stated that the victim told her about the incident only after two months, which raised doubts about the credibility. Crucially, the prosecution failed to prove the age of the victim beyond reasonable doubt. The only evidence of age was the victim's own statement that she was 14, and a medical opinion that estimated her age between 16 to 18 years. No birth certificate or school record was produced. The court held that in the absence of reliable proof of age, the offence under the POCSO Act could not be sustained. Additionally, the court found that the conviction under Section 450 IPC was not justified as there was no evidence of lurking house-trespass or house-breaking. The court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence, and acquitted the appellant.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Rape - Age of Victim - Proof - In a prosecution under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act), the age of the victim is a crucial ingredient. The prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the victim was below 18 years. In the absence of reliable evidence such as a birth certificate or school record, the court cannot presume the age. (Paras 10-12) B) Criminal Law - Rape - Testimony of Victim - Corroboration - While the testimony of a victim of sexual assault is given great weight, it must be credible and consistent. Inconsistencies and contradictions in the victim's version, especially regarding the date and time of the incident, can create reasonable doubt. (Paras 8-9) C) Criminal Law - House Trespass - Section 450 IPC - Ingredients - To convict under Section 450 IPC for lurking house-trespass or house-breaking in order to commit an offence punishable with imprisonment for life, the prosecution must prove that the accused committed lurking house-trespass or house-breaking. The mere fact that the accused entered the house and committed rape does not automatically establish lurking house-trespass. (Para 13)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellant under Sections 450, 376(1), 376(2)(i) IPC and Section 4 of the POCSO Act is sustainable based on the evidence on record.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. Conviction and sentence set aside. Appellant acquitted of all charges.
Law Points
- Age of victim must be proved beyond reasonable doubt in POCSO cases
- Inconsistencies in victim's testimony can lead to acquittal
- Section 450 IPC requires proof of lurking house-trespass or house-breaking
