Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Rahul Gautam Lahase, was convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Achalpur for offences under Section 376 IPC, Section 8 of the POCSO Act, and Section 67 of the IT Act, and sentenced to 10 years rigorous imprisonment. The prosecution alleged that in March 2017, the accused befriended the victim on Facebook, called her to a hotel in Anjangaon Surji, took her photographs without consent, threatened to make them viral, and committed penetrative sexual assault. Subsequently, he allegedly uploaded obscene photographs on Facebook and sent them to relatives. The FIR was lodged on 19.10.2017, after a delay of seven months. The victim's marriage was arranged with Ashish, and the accused allegedly contacted him with the photographs. The High Court found that the delay in lodging the FIR was not satisfactorily explained, as the victim continued contact with the accused and did not report earlier despite opportunities. The medical evidence did not corroborate penetrative sexual assault, and the forensic report on the photographs and mobile phones was not produced. The court held that the conviction under Section 67 IT Act could not be sustained without the electronic record or CA report. The age of the victim was also not proved beyond doubt. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the conviction and sentence were set aside, and the appellant was acquitted.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Rape - Section 376 IPC - Delay in FIR - Inordinate delay of seven months in lodging FIR without satisfactory explanation renders prosecution case doubtful - Held that unexplained delay coupled with lack of corroboration on medical evidence leads to acquittal (Paras 11-14). B) Criminal Law - POCSO Act - Section 8 - Penetrative Sexual Assault - Medical Evidence - Absence of corroboration by medical evidence or forensic report creates reasonable doubt - Held that conviction cannot be based solely on uncorroborated testimony of victim where medical evidence does not support (Paras 15-18). C) Information Technology - Section 67 IT Act - Obscene Material - Proof of Electronic Evidence - Failure to produce forensic report or original photographs/CA report renders conviction unsustainable - Held that oral evidence alone without electronic record is insufficient (Paras 19-22). D) Evidence - Age of Victim - Proof - Discrepancy in birth date and unreliable documentary evidence - Held that prosecution failed to prove victim was below 18 years on date of incident (Paras 23-25).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellant under Sections 376 IPC, 8 of POCSO Act, and 67 of IT Act is sustainable based on the evidence on record.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. The judgment and order dated 22.11.2021 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.2, Achalpur is set aside. The appellant is acquitted of all charges. His bail bonds stand cancelled.
Law Points
- Delay in lodging FIR in sexual offences must be satisfactorily explained
- Medical evidence must corroborate penetrative sexual assault
- Proof of electronic evidence requires forensic report or original material under Section 65B of Evidence Act
- Age of victim must be proved by reliable documentary evidence
