Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Manikanta @ Puli, was convicted by the I Additional Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Chikkamagaluru, in Spl.C.(PCSOA) No.10/2017 for offences under Section 376(2)(i)(n) and 506 IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act, and sentenced to life imprisonment. The case arose from an alleged incident where the appellant forcibly raped the victim, a minor girl, on 20.02.2017. The victim's mother lodged a complaint on 21.02.2017. The prosecution relied on the victim's testimony, medical evidence, and an extract of the school admission register (Ex.P.8) to prove the victim's age as 16 years. The appellant challenged the conviction on grounds that the age was not proved, the victim's testimony was inconsistent, and the medical evidence did not support rape. The High Court analyzed the evidence and found that Ex.P.8, an extract of the school admission register, was not sufficient to prove age as the author was not examined. The court also noted inconsistencies in the victim's statement regarding the date of incident and the medical evidence showing no injuries. The court held that the prosecution failed to prove the age of the victim and the offence beyond reasonable doubt. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the conviction and sentence were set aside, and the appellant was acquitted. The court directed his release unless required in any other case.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Age Determination - Proof of Age - Section 6 POCSO Act, Section 376 IPC - The prosecution must prove the age of the victim beyond reasonable doubt for an offence under POCSO Act. An extract of the school admission register (Ex.P.8) without examining the author or the person who made the entry is not sufficient to establish age. The court held that Ex.P.8 is not hit by Section 162 CrPC but lacks evidentiary value as the author was not examined. (Paras 10-15) B) Criminal Law - Rape - Medical Evidence - Inconsistencies - Section 376 IPC - The medical evidence showing no injuries on the victim or accused, and the victim's testimony being inconsistent with the alleged forcible rape, creates doubt. The court held that the prosecution failed to prove the offence beyond reasonable doubt. (Paras 16-20) C) Criminal Law - Appeal - Acquittal - Benefit of Doubt - The appellant is entitled to acquittal as the prosecution failed to prove the age of the victim and the occurrence of rape beyond reasonable doubt. The court set aside the conviction and sentence. (Paras 21-22)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellant under Section 376(2)(i)(n) and 506 IPC and Section 6 of POCSO Act is sustainable in law, particularly regarding the proof of age of the victim and the reliability of the evidence.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. The judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 11.06.2018 passed by the I Additional Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Chikkamagaluru in Spl.C.(PCSOA) No.10/2017 is set aside. The appellant is acquitted of all charges. He shall be released forthwith unless required in any other case.
Law Points
- Age determination in POCSO cases must be proved beyond reasonable doubt
- School admission register extract without examining author is not conclusive
- Section 162 CrPC does not bar use of documents for corroboration
- Inconsistencies in victim's testimony and medical evidence lead to benefit of doubt
