Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Guruprasad Daulat Bhalavi, was convicted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur in Special POCSO Case 224/2016 for offences under Sections 376(2)(f)(n), 344, 354A, 323, 506 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Sections 4, 5(j)(ii)(l)(n), 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012. He was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for ten years for the rape offence and lesser terms for other offences. The victim (PW-1), aged 16 years, alleged that the accused, her maternal uncle, sexually assaulted her multiple times starting from June 2015. The FIR was lodged on 14 May 2016, about 11 months after the first incident. The victim claimed that the accused touched her private parts, threatened her, and subjected her to sexual intercourse on several occasions. However, the victim's mother (PW-2) turned hostile and did not support the prosecution. The medical evidence did not confirm rape. The High Court found that the victim's testimony contained material inconsistencies and improvements, and the delay in lodging the FIR was not satisfactorily explained. The court held that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the conviction and sentence were set aside, and the appellant was acquitted of all charges.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Rape and Sexual Assault - Delay in FIR - Inconsistencies in Testimony - The appellant was convicted for rape and sexual assault under IPC and POCSO Act. The High Court found that the FIR was lodged after a delay of about 11 months without satisfactory explanation, and the victim's testimony contained material inconsistencies and improvements. The court held that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt and acquitted the appellant. (Paras 1-10) B) Evidence Act - Credibility of Witness - Delay in FIR - The court noted that the victim's mother (PW-2) and other witnesses did not support the prosecution case. The delay in lodging the FIR and the lack of corroboration rendered the victim's testimony unreliable. The court emphasized that the burden of proof lies on the prosecution and the accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt. (Paras 5-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellant under Sections 376(2)(f)(n), 344, 354A, 323, 506 of the IPC and Sections 4, 5(j)(ii)(l)(n), 6 of the POCSO Act is sustainable in law given the inconsistencies in the prosecution evidence and delay in lodging the FIR.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. Conviction and sentence set aside. Appellant acquitted of all charges.
Law Points
- Presumption of innocence
- Burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt
- Delay in FIR
- Inconsistencies in testimony
- Credibility of victim
- Section 376 IPC
- POCSO Act
- Section 344 IPC
- Section 354A IPC
- Section 323 IPC
- Section 506 IPC
