Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Abdul Riyaz @ Riyaz Pasha, was convicted by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Chamarajanagar, in Special Case No.80/2014 for offences under Sections 5(j)(ii) and (l) r/w 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act) and Sections 376(2)(j)(n), 420, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The victim, a minor girl, alleged that the appellant, an auto driver, had sexual intercourse with her on multiple occasions under the pretext of marriage and threatened her. The trial court sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for life under POCSO and various terms under IPC. The appellant appealed to the High Court of Karnataka. The High Court heard arguments from the appellant's counsel and the State's counsel. The court noted that the trial court had passed sentence under both POCSO and IPC, which is impermissible under Section 42 of the POCSO Act, which mandates that only the greater punishment should be imposed. On merits, the court found that the victim's testimony was inconsistent and uncorroborated. She gave contradictory statements about the number of incidents and the use of threats. The medical evidence did not support recent sexual assault, and the delay in filing the FIR was not satisfactorily explained. The court held that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the conviction and sentence were set aside, and the appellant was acquitted of all charges.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - POCSO Act - Aggravated Penetrative Sexual Assault - Sections 5(j)(ii), 5(l) r/w 6 - Conviction set aside due to inconsistent and uncorroborated testimony of victim - The victim's evidence was contradictory regarding the number of incidents and the use of threats; medical evidence did not support recent sexual assault; delay in FIR was not properly explained - Held that prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt (Paras 4-10). B) Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code - Rape - Section 376(2)(j)(n) - Inconsistent evidence - The victim's testimony was unreliable as she gave varying accounts of the incidents and there was no corroboration from independent witnesses or medical evidence - Held that conviction cannot be sustained (Paras 4-10). C) Criminal Law - POCSO Act - Section 42 - Punishment - If an offence is punishable under both POCSO Act and IPC, the offender shall be liable only for the greater punishment, not both - The trial court erred in sentencing under both Acts - Held that sentence under both Acts is impermissible (Para 4).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellant under Sections 5(j)(ii) and (l) r/w 6 of POCSO Act and Sections 376(2)(j)(n), 420, 506 IPC is sustainable based on the evidence on record.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. The judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 09/10.06.2016 passed by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Chamarajanagar in Special Case No.80/2014 is set aside. The appellant/accused is acquitted of all charges. His bail bonds stand cancelled.
Law Points
- Section 42 of POCSO Act provides that if an offender is guilty under both POCSO and IPC
- punishment shall be for the offence providing greater punishment
- not both
- conviction cannot be based on inconsistent and uncorroborated testimony of a child witness
- delay in lodging FIR must be satisfactorily explained
- medical evidence must corroborate sexual assault allegations.
