Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Balaji Malhari Devkate, was convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bhokar, District Nanded, for the offence of rape under Section 376(2)(i) of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 4 and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, for allegedly raping an 8-year-old girl on 16 March 2019. The prosecution case was that the victim, along with her sister and another minor girl, was taken to a ditch by the appellant, where he committed rape. The victim's grandmother (PW4) lodged the FIR after the victim complained of pain and difficulty in urination. The trial court convicted the appellant based on the testimony of the victim and other witnesses. On appeal, the Bombay High Court examined the evidence and found several inconsistencies. The medical evidence showed that the victim's hymen was intact and there were no injuries, which contradicted the allegation of penetration. The victim's testimony was inconsistent with that of her sister and other witnesses. The court also noted that the victim's sister, who was present, did not support the prosecution case. The High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt, and the conviction was unsustainable. The appeal was allowed, and the appellant was acquitted of all charges.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Rape of Minor - Section 376(2)(i) IPC, Sections 4 and 6 POCSO Act - Conviction set aside - The appellant was convicted for rape of an 8-year-old girl. The High Court found that the medical evidence did not support the allegation of penetration, as the hymen was intact and no injuries were found. The testimony of the victim and other witnesses was inconsistent and contradictory. The court held that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt, and the appellant was entitled to acquittal. (Paras 1-20) B) Evidence Law - Child Witness - Credibility - Inconsistencies - The victim's testimony was found to be unreliable due to material contradictions with other prosecution witnesses. The court held that in the absence of corroboration and consistent evidence, the conviction cannot be sustained. (Paras 15-18) C) Medical Jurisprudence - Rape - Proof of Penetration - Medical evidence showing intact hymen and no injuries is inconsistent with forceful penetration. The court relied on the medical report to conclude that the alleged rape did not occur. (Paras 12-14)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellant under Section 376(2)(i) of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 4 and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 is sustainable based on the evidence on record.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. Conviction set aside. Appellant acquitted of all charges.
Law Points
- Conviction under POCSO Act requires proof of penetration beyond reasonable doubt
- Medical evidence inconsistent with rape allegation
- Child witness testimony must be corroborated if inconsistent
- Benefit of doubt must be given to accused when prosecution fails to prove case
