The Bombay High Court overturned the conviction of Kishore Vitthalrao Shendre, accused of sexual assault under Section 376(2)(i) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act. The court found significant inconsistencies in the victim's and her sister's testimonies, contradictions about the medical examination, and lack of corroborative evidence. The accused, who was sentenced to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment, was acquitted due to insufficient proof beyond a reasonable doubt, benefiting from the presumption of innocence.

Case Details:

• Case Title: Kishore Vitthalrao Shendre v. State of Maharashtra
• Court: High Court of Bombay, Nagpur Bench
• Judgment Date: August 13, 2024
• Judge: Justice G. A. Sanap
• Appellant: Kishore Vitthalrao Shendre
• Respondent: State of Maharashtra
• Charges:
  • Section 376(2)(i) of the IPC (Rape)
  • Section 452 of the IPC (House Trespass)
  • Section 4 of the POCSO Act (Sexual Assault)

Background:

• The victim, a 16-year-old girl, alleged that the accused sexually assaulted her at her residence in June 2016. Her testimony included details of the accused entering her house, removing her clothes, and committing the crime. However, she refused medical examination on the day of the incident and consented only 20 days later.

Issues Raised by the Defense:

1. Inconsistencies in Testimony: The defense argued that there were multiple discrepancies between the victim’s and her sister’s testimonies regarding the timeline, the refusal for medical examination, and the sequence of events.
2. Delay in Medical Examination: The victim's medical examination was conducted 20 days after the incident, and the doctor could not provide conclusive evidence supporting sexual assault.
3. Doubtful Evidence: Contradictions in the statements given to the police and discrepancies in the medical evidence raised doubts about the prosecution's case.
4. Lack of Independent Witness: Neighbors who allegedly witnessed the aftermath of the incident did not testify, and Shakunabai, a crucial witness, was not examined.

Judgment:

• The court noted the inconsistencies in the victim’s and her sister’s testimonies, particularly regarding the refusal for medical examination, raising doubts about the credibility of their statements.
• The absence of corroborative medical evidence, especially due to the delayed examination, further weakened the prosecution's case.
• The court highlighted that the presumption under Section 29 of the POCSO Act, which shifts the burden of proof to the accused, could not be triggered in the absence of foundational facts being proven beyond doubt.

Conclusion:

• The High Court set aside the conviction and acquitted the accused, giving him the benefit of doubt due to the lack of credible and sufficient evidence.

Acts and Sections Discussed:

1. Indian Penal Code (IPC):

   • Section 376(2)(i): Pertains to rape, especially involving minors. The accused was charged with this but was acquitted due to lack of sufficient evidence.
   • Section 452: Relates to house trespass after preparation for hurt, assault, or wrongful restraint.

2. POCSO Act, 2012:

   • Section 4: Deals with punishment for penetrative sexual assault. Though the accused was initially convicted, the evidence was deemed insufficient to uphold the charge.

Ratio Decidendi:

The court held that the inconsistencies and contradictions in the victim’s testimony, combined with the absence of medical corroboration, cast significant doubt on the occurrence of the crime. As a result, the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt, thereby acquitting him. The presumption of guilt under Section 29 of the POCSO Act did not apply due to the failure of foundational facts.