Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Balaji Malhari Devkate, was convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bhokar, District Nanded for the rape of an 8-year-old girl 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. The prosecution alleged that on 16 March 2019, the appellant took the victim to a ditch, removed her salwar, and inserted his private part into hers, causing pain and a sticky discharge. The victim's grandmother (PW4) lodged an FIR, and the appellant was charged. The trial court convicted him based primarily on the testimony of the child victim (PW1) and her grandmother. On appeal, the High Court examined the evidence in detail. The court noted that the medical evidence (PW5, Dr. Shital) showed no signs of external or internal injury, the hymen was intact, and there was no evidence of recent sexual intercourse. The victim's testimony contained inconsistencies regarding the presence of other children and the sequence of events. The grandmother's testimony (PW4) contradicted the victim on material points, such as whether the victim was accompanied by her sister or another girl. The court also noted that the victim's sister (PW2) did not support the prosecution case and was declared hostile. The investigating officer (PW6) admitted that no independent witnesses were examined. The High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt, as the medical evidence did not corroborate the allegation of penetration, and the child witness testimony was unreliable due to contradictions. The court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction, and acquitted the appellant, giving him the benefit of the doubt.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Rape of Minor - Section 376(2)(i) IPC, Sections 4 and 6 POCSO Act - Conviction based on child witness testimony - Medical evidence showing no signs of penetration and hymen intact - Held that conviction cannot be sustained when medical evidence contradicts the alleged penetration and the child's testimony is not corroborated by other reliable evidence (Paras 1-20). B) Evidence Law - Child Witness - Credibility - Testimony of 8-year-old victim - Inconsistencies and contradictions with other prosecution witnesses - Held that conviction cannot be based solely on uncorroborated testimony of a child witness when there are material contradictions and the medical evidence does not support the prosecution case (Paras 15-20). C) Criminal Law - Benefit of Doubt - Acquittal - Prosecution failing to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt - Inconsistencies in FIR, deposition, and medical evidence - Held that appellant is entitled to benefit of doubt and acquittal (Paras 18-20).
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 and sentence set aside. Appellant acquitted of all charges. Bail bonds cancelled.
Law Points
- Conviction under Section 376(2)(i) IPC and Sections 4 and 6 POCSO Act requires proof of penetration beyond reasonable doubt
- Medical evidence inconsistent with alleged rape
- Child witness testimony must be corroborated if unreliable
- Benefit of doubt when prosecution case has material contradictions
