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 trial court sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 50,000/- with default stipulation, and in the alternative, rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and fine. Aggrieved, the appellant preferred the present Criminal Appeal under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC). The case arose from an incident on 01.05.2013 when the prosecutrix, an 11-year-old girl belonging to the Scheduled Tribe community, was allegedly dragged to a jungle area by the appellant and another accused and forcibly raped. The prosecutrix reported the incident to her aunt and grandmother, leading to an FIR at Vajlpur Police Station. The trial court convicted the appellant based on the testimony of the prosecutrix and other witnesses. The High Court re-appreciated the evidence and found material contradictions and inconsistencies in the prosecution case. The medical evidence did not support the allegation of rape, and the testimony of the prosecutrix was not corroborated by independent witnesses. The court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and that the conviction was unsustainable. Consequently, the High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence, and acquitted the appellant of all charges.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Rape - Minor - POCSO Act - Appreciation of Evidence - Conviction based solely on testimony of prosecutrix without corroboration - Material contradictions and inconsistencies in prosecution case - Held that conviction cannot be sustained when evidence is unreliable and lacks corroboration on material particulars (Paras 1-17). B) Evidence Law - Corroboration - Necessity of - In cases of sexual offences, though conviction can be based on sole testimony of victim, it must be trustworthy and reliable - Where testimony suffers from material contradictions and is not corroborated by medical or other evidence, benefit of doubt must be given to accused (Paras 10-15). C) Criminal Procedure - Appeal against conviction - Appellate court's power to re-appreciate evidence - High Court can re-appreciate evidence and interfere with findings of trial court if perverse or based on no evidence (Paras 1-17).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellant-accused under Sections 376(2)(i)(d) IPC, Section 4 of POCSO Act, and Sections 3(1)(xi) and 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act is sustainable in law based on the evidence on record.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the 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 of all charges. The appellant was ordered to be set at liberty forthwith if not required in any other case.
Law Points
- Appreciation of evidence in sexual offences
- Corroboration of victim testimony
- Contradictions in prosecution case
- Benefit of doubt
- Presumption of innocence
