Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Kundan Pendor, was convicted by the trial court under Sections 3(a), 5(j)(ii), and 5(l) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO) and Sections 376 and 417 of the Indian Penal Code for allegedly having sexual intercourse with a minor girl, referred to as 'S', who was studying in VIIIth standard. The prosecution alleged that the appellant, a driver, developed a friendship with 'S' and had sexual relations with her from November 2010, leading to her pregnancy. A report was lodged on 15th June 2013, and after investigation, a charge-sheet was filed. The appellant pleaded not guilty and was tried. The trial court convicted him and sentenced him to life imprisonment and a fine of Rs.1,000/-. The appellant appealed to the Bombay High Court. The High Court examined the evidence regarding the age of the prosecutrix, noting inconsistencies in the school records and medical opinion. The court also considered the appellant's defence that the relationship was consensual and that the prosecutrix had consented. The court held that the prosecution failed to prove the age of the prosecutrix beyond reasonable doubt and that the consent defence was not adequately rebutted. Consequently, the court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction, and acquitted the appellant, giving him the benefit of doubt.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Age of Victim - Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt - Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, Sections 3(a), 5(j)(ii), 5(l) - The court examined whether the prosecution had proved the age of the prosecutrix as below 18 years. The evidence including school records and medical opinion was found inconsistent and unreliable. Held that the age must be proved beyond reasonable doubt, and the benefit of doubt must go to the accused (Paras 10-15). B) Criminal Law - Consent - Rape - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 376, 417 - The appellant claimed that the relationship was consensual and that the prosecutrix had consented to sexual intercourse. The court noted that if the prosecutrix was above 16, consent would be a valid defence. Held that the prosecution failed to prove lack of consent beyond reasonable doubt (Paras 16-20). C) Criminal Law - Benefit of Doubt - Acquittal - The court found that the prosecution's case suffered from material inconsistencies and the age of the prosecutrix was not conclusively established. Held that the appellant is entitled to the benefit of doubt and the conviction is set aside (Paras 21-25).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellant under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and Indian Penal Code for sexual offences against a minor is sustainable when the age of the prosecutrix is disputed and the relationship was allegedly consensual.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. Conviction set aside. Appellant acquitted of all charges. Fine, if paid, to be refunded.
Law Points
- Age of prosecutrix must be proved beyond reasonable doubt
- Consent is a valid defence in rape cases if victim is above 16
- POCSO Act applies only if victim is below 18
- Benefit of doubt must be given to accused
