Case Note & Summary
The case involves an appeal against the conviction of Dr. Ramesh under Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code for allegedly committing sexual assault on a minor girl. The appellant was convicted by the trial court and the conviction was upheld by the High Court. The Supreme Court, after examining the evidence, found that the prosecutrix's testimony was inconsistent and lacked corroboration from medical evidence. The court noted that the medical report did not support the allegations of penetration and there were material contradictions in the victim's statement. The court held that the prosecution had failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt and therefore the conviction was not sustainable. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction, and acquitted the appellant, directing his release unless required in any other case.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Sexual Offences - POCSO Act - Conviction - Inconsistent Testimony - The appellant was convicted under Section 4 of POCSO Act and Section 376 IPC for allegedly committing sexual assault on a minor girl. The Supreme Court held that the prosecutrix's testimony was inconsistent and lacked corroboration from medical evidence, and therefore the conviction was not sustainable. The court emphasized that in cases of sexual offences, the victim's testimony must be credible and consistent, and if there are material contradictions, the benefit of doubt must be given to the accused. (Paras 2-15) B) Evidence Law - Corroboration - Medical Evidence - In a case of sexual assault, medical evidence did not support the allegations of penetration. The court noted that the absence of corroborative medical evidence, coupled with inconsistencies in the victim's statement, rendered the prosecution case doubtful. The court reiterated that while corroboration is not always necessary, in cases where the testimony is shaky, medical evidence can be crucial. (Paras 10-14) C) Criminal Procedure - Appeal - Acquittal - The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction, and acquitted the appellant, giving him the benefit of doubt. The court directed that the appellant be released forthwith unless required in any other case. (Para 15)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellant under Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code is sustainable in light of inconsistencies in the prosecutrix's testimony and lack of corroborative evidence.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction, and acquitted the appellant. The appellant was directed to be released forthwith unless required in any other case.
Law Points
- Conviction under POCSO Act requires consistent and credible testimony of the victim
- corroborated by medical evidence
- Inconsistencies in the prosecutrix's statement and lack of corroboration lead to benefit of doubt
- Section 4 of POCSO Act
- 2012
- Section 376 of IPC
