Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Yogesh Arjun Maral, was convicted by the Special Court under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act) for allegedly sexually assaulting a minor girl, Sakshi (PW1), on 6th May 2013. The prosecution case was that the appellant, a neighbour, called Sakshi and other children to his house, drove the other children out, closed the curtains, removed her underwear, and touched her private parts. Sakshi cried and ran to her mother Rupali (PW2), who then informed her husband Baba Gholap (PW3). Baba Gholap lodged an FIR at Sahakar Nagar Police Station. The appellant was arrested and chargesheeted. During trial, the prosecution examined four witnesses: Sakshi (PW1), Rupali (PW2), Baba Gholap (PW3), and Investigating Officer Shailaja Jankar (PW4). The trial court convicted the appellant under Section 8 of POCSO Act and sentenced him to 3 years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.2,000. The appellant appealed to the High Court. The High Court reappreciated the evidence and found material contradictions. Sakshi initially stated in her examination-in-chief that she went to the appellant's house to play with other children and that the appellant drove them out. However, in cross-examination, she admitted that no other children were present and that she went alone. She also contradicted herself regarding whether the appellant removed her underwear or not. The FIR, lodged by Baba Gholap, did not mention that the appellant removed her underwear, but only that he touched her private parts. The mother Rupali's testimony also varied. The court noted that the child's testimony was not corroborated by any independent witness and that the trial court had ignored these contradictions. The High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt and that the appellant was entitled to the benefit of doubt. The appeal was allowed, the conviction and sentence were set aside, and the appellant was acquitted.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Sexual Assault - Section 8 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 - Appreciation of Evidence - The appellant was convicted for sexual assault on a minor girl. The High Court found material contradictions in the prosecution evidence, particularly regarding the presence of other children and the sequence of events. The court held that the trial court failed to properly appreciate the evidence and that the prosecution did not prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. The conviction was set aside and the appellant was acquitted. (Paras 1-11) B) Evidence Law - Child Witness - Corroboration - The testimony of the minor victim (PW1) was found to be inconsistent with the FIR and the evidence of her mother (PW2). The court noted that the FIR was lodged by the father (PW3) who had no personal knowledge of the incident. The discrepancies in the child's testimony regarding the presence of other children and the act of removing underwear were significant. The court held that such contradictions cannot be ignored and the benefit of doubt must be given to the accused. (Paras 4-8) C) Criminal Procedure - Appeal against Conviction - Reappreciation of Evidence - The High Court, in an appeal against conviction, reappreciated the evidence and found that the trial court's findings were perverse. The court emphasized that the appellate court can interfere when the trial court's appreciation of evidence is flawed. The conviction was set aside as the prosecution failed to establish the guilt beyond reasonable doubt. (Paras 9-11)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellant under Section 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, based on the testimony of the minor victim and other witnesses, is sustainable in law.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. Conviction and sentence set aside. Appellant acquitted.
Law Points
- Benefit of doubt
- Material contradictions
- Corroboration of child testimony
- Standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt
- Appreciation of evidence in sexual offences
