Case Note & Summary
The appellant-accused, Arvindbhai @ Bhadabhai Shanabhai @ Shankarbhai Chauhan, was convicted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Panchmahal at Godhra in Special Case No. 24 of 2014 for offences under Section 376(2)(i)(d) read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), Sections 3(1)(xi) and 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, and Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act). The case arose from an incident alleged to have occurred on 01.05.2013, where the prosecutrix, an 11-year-old girl belonging to the Scheduled Tribe community, was allegedly dragged to a jungle area and raped by the appellant while another accused stood watch. The trial court sentenced the appellant to rigorous imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 50,000/- with default stipulation. Aggrieved, the appellant filed the present criminal appeal under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC). The High Court re-appreciated the evidence and found material contradictions in the prosecutrix's testimony, inconsistencies with the medical evidence which showed no signs of recent sexual assault, and lack of corroboration from independent witnesses. The court noted that the prosecutrix's version regarding the date and time of the incident was inconsistent, and the medical evidence did not support the allegation of forcible sexual intercourse. The court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, and the trial court's findings were based on conjectures and surmises. Consequently, the High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence, and acquitted the appellant of all charges. The court also disposed of the connected criminal miscellaneous application for temporary bail as infructuous.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Rape - Minor Victim - Corroboration - Conviction based solely on testimony of prosecutrix requires careful scrutiny - In the present case, the prosecutrix's testimony suffered from material contradictions and inconsistencies with medical evidence and other prosecution witnesses - Held that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt, and the appellant is entitled to acquittal (Paras 1-17). B) Evidence Law - Child Witness - Reliability - The testimony of a child witness must be examined with caution - The prosecutrix, aged 11 years, gave contradictory statements regarding the date, time, and manner of the incident - Her version was not corroborated by the medical evidence which showed no signs of recent sexual assault - Held that the child witness's testimony was unreliable (Paras 8-12). C) Criminal Procedure - Appeal Against Conviction - Appellate Court's Power - The High Court, in an appeal against conviction, can re-appreciate evidence and interfere if the findings are perverse or based on no evidence - In this case, the trial court's findings were found to be based on conjectures and surmises - Held that the conviction was unsustainable and liable to be set aside (Paras 13-17).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellant-accused under Sections 376(2)(i)(d) read with Section 114 of IPC, Sections 3(1)(xi) and 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act, and Section 4 of the POCSO Act is sustainable in law based on the evidence on record.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 15.09.2015 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Panchmahal at Godhra in Special Case No. 24 of 2014, and acquitted the appellant-accused of all charges. The appellant was ordered to be set at liberty forthwith if not required in any other case. The connected Criminal Misc. Application (Temporary Bail) No. 1 of 2026 was disposed of as infructuous.
Law Points
- Appreciation of evidence in sexual offences
- Corroboration of victim testimony
- Contradictions in prosecution case
- Benefit of doubt
- Presumption of innocence
