Case Note & Summary
The case involves two criminal appeals filed by Christian Rajendran, Joy Rajendran, and Salomi Rajendran against their conviction and sentence under Sections 376(2)(d)(i)(n), 377, 323 IPC and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012. The appellants were convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Panvel-Raigad, in Special POCSO Case No.107 of 2019 on 3rd March 2020. The prosecution alleged that the appellants, who were running a children's home called Prerna Nav-Nihal Bal Ashram, sexually assaulted the victim, a minor inmate, on multiple occasions. The victim, a 17-year-old girl, testified that Christian Rajendran raped her and forced her to perform unnatural sex, while Joy Rajendran and Salomi Rajendran assisted in the acts. The medical evidence, however, showed no signs of recent sexual activity or injuries. The trial court convicted the appellants based primarily on the victim's testimony. On appeal, the Bombay High Court examined the evidence and found that the victim's testimony was riddled with inconsistencies and contradictions. The victim gave varying accounts of the number of incidents, the dates, and the presence of other children. The medical evidence did not corroborate the allegations. The court also noted that the prosecution failed to examine crucial witnesses, such as other inmates of the home, who could have corroborated the victim's story. The court held that the presumption under Section 29 of the POCSO Act was rebutted by the accused through cross-examination. Consequently, the court allowed the appeals, set aside the conviction, and acquitted the appellants of all charges.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Appreciation of Evidence - Sexual Offences - Corroboration - In a case under POCSO Act and IPC, the testimony of the victim must be reliable and trustworthy; if it suffers from material inconsistencies and contradictions, conviction cannot be sustained without corroboration. The court held that the victim's evidence was inconsistent regarding the number of incidents, dates, and presence of others, and the medical evidence did not support the allegations of sexual assault. (Paras 1-37) B) Criminal Law - POCSO Act - Presumption under Section 29 - Rebuttal - The presumption under Section 29 of the POCSO Act is not absolute and can be rebutted by the accused. The court held that the prosecution failed to prove the foundational facts beyond reasonable doubt, and the accused successfully rebutted the presumption through cross-examination and inconsistencies in the victim's testimony. (Paras 30-35) C) Criminal Law - Sentencing - Acquittal - When the prosecution fails to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, the accused is entitled to acquittal. The court set aside the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court and acquitted the appellants of all charges. (Paras 36-37)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellants under Sections 376(2)(d)(i)(n), 377, 323 IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act is sustainable based on the evidence on record.
Final Decision
The appeals are allowed. The judgment and order dated 3rd March 2020 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Panvel-Raigad, in Special POCSO Case No.107 of 2019 is set aside. The appellants are acquitted of all charges. Their bail bonds stand cancelled.
Law Points
- Appreciation of evidence in sexual offences
- Corroboration of victim testimony
- Standard of proof in criminal cases
- Presumption under POCSO Act
- Reliability of child witness
