Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Sri. Gangadharappa, was convicted by the I-Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Chikkaballapur in Special Sessions Case No.71/2018 for offences punishable under Section 376(2)(1) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 4 and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, and Sections 3(1)(w) and 3(2)(v-a) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The appellant filed a criminal appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking to set aside the conviction and sentence. The High Court heard the learned counsel for the appellant, Shri Veeranna G. Tigadi, and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the State. Upon perusing the impugned judgment and the evidence on record, the court found that the prosecution had examined 25 witnesses (PW1 to PW25). The court noted inconsistencies and lack of corroboration in the victim's testimony, which rendered it unreliable. The court also observed that there was no evidence to establish that the accused knew the victim's caste or that the alleged act was committed on account of her caste, which is essential for an offence under the SC/ST Act. Consequently, the High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The appeal was allowed, the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence were set aside, and the appellant was acquitted of all charges.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Rape and Sexual Assault - Section 376(2)(1) IPC, Sections 4 and 6 POCSO Act, 2012 - Conviction based on uncorroborated and inconsistent testimony of victim - Held that conviction cannot be sustained where the victim's testimony is not reliable and lacks corroboration on material aspects (Paras 2-5). B) Criminal Law - SC/ST Act - Sections 3(1)(w) and 3(2)(v-a) SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 - Offence under SC/ST Act requires specific intent and knowledge of caste - Held that in absence of evidence that the accused knew the victim's caste or that the act was committed on account of caste, conviction under SC/ST Act is not maintainable (Paras 2-5). C) Evidence Law - Appreciation of Evidence - Standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt - Benefit of doubt - Held that prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and any inconsistency or doubt entitles the accused to acquittal (Paras 2-5).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellant under Section 376(2)(1) of IPC, Sections 4 and 6 of POCSO Act, and Sections 3(1)(w) and 3(2)(v-a) of SC & ST (POA) Act is sustainable based on the evidence on record.
Final Decision
The appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 15.12.2018 in Special Sessions Case No.71/2018 passed by the I-Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Chikkaballapur is set aside. The appellant is acquitted of all charges.
Law Points
- Appreciation of evidence in sexual offences
- Corroboration of victim testimony
- Standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt
- Presumption of innocence
- Benefit of doubt
