Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Amol Jayram Landge, was convicted by the Special Judge and Additional Sessions Judge-2, Hingoli, in Special Case (POCSO) No. 34 of 2019 for offences under Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act) and Sections 376(2)(i), 376(2)(n), 366-A, and 363 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). He was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and a fine of Rs. 2000/- for the POCSO offence, with default sentences. The appellant challenged his conviction in Criminal Appeal No. 98 of 2022, while the State filed Criminal Appeal No. 818 of 2025 seeking enhancement of sentence. The High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad, heard both appeals together. The prosecution case was that the appellant kidnapped the victim, a minor girl aged about 15 years, and committed aggravated penetrative sexual assault on her. The victim's mother lodged an FIR on 18th June 2019. The trial court convicted the appellant based on the testimony of the victim and other witnesses. The High Court examined the evidence and found that the victim's testimony was inconsistent and unreliable. There were material contradictions between her FIR statement and her deposition in court. The medical evidence did not conclusively prove penetrative sexual assault, and the age of the victim was not established beyond reasonable doubt. The court held that the presumption under Section 29 of the POCSO Act was rebutted by the inconsistencies in the prosecution case. Consequently, the High Court allowed the appeal filed by the appellant, set aside his conviction, and acquitted him of all charges. The State's appeal for enhancement of sentence was dismissed as infructuous.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - POCSO Act - Aggravated Penetrative Sexual Assault - Section 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 - Conviction based on sole testimony of victim - Held that when the testimony of the victim is inconsistent and unreliable, the presumption under Section 29 of the POCSO Act stands rebutted, and the accused is entitled to acquittal (Paras 1-10). B) Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code - Kidnapping and Rape - Sections 363, 366-A, 376(2)(i), 376(2)(n) of Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Prosecution failed to prove that the victim was below 18 years of age - Medical evidence and school records not conclusive - Held that the age of the victim must be proved beyond reasonable doubt for offences under POCSO Act (Paras 11-15). C) Evidence Law - Appreciation of Evidence - Inconsistencies in Testimony - Contradictions between FIR and deposition - Held that material contradictions and improvements in the victim's testimony render the prosecution case doubtful, and the accused is entitled to benefit of doubt (Paras 16-20).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellant under Section 6 of the POCSO Act and Sections 376(2)(i), 376(2)(n), 366-A, and 363 of the IPC is sustainable based on the evidence on record.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed Criminal Appeal No. 98 of 2022, set aside the conviction and sentence of the appellant, and acquitted him of all charges. Criminal Appeal No. 818 of 2025 filed by the State was dismissed as infructuous.
Law Points
- Presumption under Section 29 of POCSO Act is rebuttable
- Benefit of doubt must be given when prosecution evidence is inconsistent
- Conviction cannot be based solely on uncorroborated testimony of victim if it is unreliable
- Age determination under POCSO Act requires strict proof
- Section 6 POCSO Act requires proof of penetrative sexual assault
