Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Pankaj Dadarao Ambadkar, was convicted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-1 & Special Judge, Achalpur in Special (POCSO) Case No. 11/2013 dated 26.6.2019 for offences punishable under Sections 363, 377, 323 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. The case arose from an incident on 08.07.2013 at about 2.30 pm, where the appellant allegedly kidnapped a minor boy from the lawful guardianship of his father and committed carnal intercourse against the order of nature. The trial court sentenced the appellant to rigorous imprisonment for three years under Section 363 IPC, six months under Section 323 IPC, and ten years under Section 4 of the POCSO Act, with fines and default clauses. No separate punishment was imposed under Section 377 IPC. The appellant challenged the conviction before the Bombay High Court at Nagpur. The High Court heard arguments from Mr. A. A. Dhawas for the appellant and Mr. M. K. Pathan, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. The court examined the record and proceedings, including the notes of evidence. The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the age of the victim as a minor beyond reasonable doubt, as the medical evidence and other documents were inconsistent. Additionally, the testimony of the victim and other witnesses was contradictory and unreliable. The court held that the benefit of doubt must be given to the appellant and set aside the conviction and sentence. The appeal was allowed, and the appellant was acquitted of all charges.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - POCSO Act - Age of Victim - Proof of Minority - Section 4 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 - The prosecution failed to establish the age of the victim as a minor through reliable evidence, as the medical evidence and other documents were inconsistent. Held that the benefit of doubt must be given to the appellant (Paras 5-10). B) Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code - Kidnapping - Section 363 IPC - The prosecution's case regarding kidnapping was not supported by consistent testimony of witnesses. Held that the conviction under Section 363 IPC cannot be sustained (Paras 5-10). C) Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code - Unnatural Offences - Section 377 IPC - The evidence of the victim and other witnesses was contradictory and unreliable. Held that the appellant is entitled to acquittal (Paras 5-10).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the victim was a minor and that the appellant committed the alleged offences.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. The impugned judgment and order of conviction dated 26.6.2019 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-1 & Special Judge, Achalpur in Special (POCSO) Case No. 11/2013 is set aside. The appellant is acquitted of all charges. His bail bonds stand discharged.
Law Points
- Age of victim must be proved beyond reasonable doubt in POCSO cases
- Inconsistencies in prosecution evidence lead to acquittal
- Benefit of doubt given to accused when evidence is unreliable
