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). He was sentenced 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, he 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, alleged that the appellant and another accused forcibly dragged her to a jungle area and committed rape. She claimed that the appellant pressed her mouth, removed her clothes, and penetrated her vagina, causing bleeding. After the incident, she informed her aunt Mamtaben and grandmother Maniben, leading to the registration of FIR I-C.R. No. 63 of 2013 at Vajlpur Police Station. The trial court convicted the appellant based on the testimony of the prosecutrix and other witnesses. However, the High Court found that the prosecutrix's testimony was inconsistent and contradictory. She initially stated that she was sent by Mohanbhai to purchase beedis, but later denied knowing Mohanbhai. She claimed she was dragged to a jungle, but the medical evidence showed no injuries or signs of recent sexual intercourse. The FSL report did not link the appellant. The court noted that the prosecutrix's grandmother Maniben and aunt Mamtaben did not support the prosecution case. The court held that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt, and the conviction was based on weak and unreliable evidence. The court also observed that there was no evidence to show that the offence was committed on the ground of caste, thus the SC/ST Act provisions were not attracted. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the conviction and sentence were set aside, and the appellant was acquitted of all charges. The court directed that the appellant be set at liberty forthwith if not required in any other case.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Rape - Testimony of Prosecutrix - Corroboration - Inconsistencies - The court examined whether the uncorroborated testimony of the minor prosecutrix, which contained material contradictions and inconsistencies, could form the basis of conviction. The court held that while the testimony of a victim of sexual assault is entitled to great weight, it must be scrutinized with care when there are serious discrepancies. In this case, the prosecutrix's version was found to be unreliable due to contradictions with medical evidence and other witnesses, leading to the conclusion that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. (Paras 1-17) B) Criminal Law - POCSO Act - Section 4 - Penetrative Sexual Assault - Medical Evidence - The court considered the medical evidence which showed no signs of recent sexual intercourse or injuries on the victim, and the FSL report did not link the accused. The court held that the medical evidence contradicted the prosecutrix's claim of forcible sexual intercourse, and thus the conviction under Section 4 of the POCSO Act was not sustainable. (Paras 10-15) C) Criminal Law - SC/ST Act - Sections 3(1)(xi) and 3(2)(v) - Intent to Humiliate - The court found that there was no evidence to show that the alleged offence was committed on the ground that the victim belonged to a Scheduled Tribe. The mere fact that the victim was a tribal was insufficient to attract the provisions of the SC/ST Act without proof of intent to humiliate or intimidate on the basis of caste. (Paras 16-17)
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 appeal is allowed. 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 is quashed and set aside. The appellant-accused is acquitted of all the charges. The appellant is ordered to be set at liberty forthwith if not required in any other case. Bail bonds, if any, stand cancelled. Fine, if paid, be refunded to the appellant.
Law Points
- Appreciation of evidence in sexual offences
- Testimony of prosecutrix
- Corroboration requirement
- Benefit of doubt
- Presumption of innocence
- Standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt
