Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Murugan, was convicted by the Fast Track Mahila Court, Theni, in Special S.C.No.27 of 2020 for offences under Section 5(l) read with Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act) and Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). He was sentenced to life imprisonment and a fine of Rs.1000 for the POCSO offence, and one month simple imprisonment for the IPC offence, with sentences to run concurrently. The case arose from allegations that the appellant, aged about 40 years, called a 13-year-old victim girl to the house of one Balaji on 18.01.2020 at 2.00 PM and committed penetrative sexual assault, and later threatened her on 16.02.2020. The victim's mother (PW1) lodged a complaint, leading to FIR in Crime No.125 of 2020. Investigation revealed the victim was five weeks pregnant. The trial court convicted the appellant based on the victim's testimony and medical evidence. On appeal, the Madras High Court examined the evidence and found material inconsistencies in the victim's deposition, particularly regarding the date, time, and place of the incident. The court noted that the victim's testimony was not corroborated by independent witnesses and that the prosecution failed to explain contradictions. The court held that the benefit of doubt must be given to the appellant, as the prosecution did not prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Consequently, the High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence, and acquitted the appellant.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Benefit of Doubt - Inconsistent Testimony - Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, Section 5(l) r/w 6 - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 506 - The appellant was convicted for penetrative sexual assault and criminal intimidation. The High Court found material inconsistencies in the victim's testimony and lack of corroboration, leading to the conclusion that the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellant, emphasizing that the benefit of doubt must be given to the accused when evidence is unreliable. (Paras 1-17) B) Evidence Law - Corroboration - Child Witness - Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 - The victim's testimony was found to be inconsistent regarding the date, time, and place of the incident, and there was no independent corroboration. The court held that in the absence of reliable evidence, the conviction cannot be sustained. (Paras 8-16)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellant under Section 5(l) read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act and Section 506 IPC is sustainable based on the evidence on record.
Final Decision
The appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentence imposed by the Fast Track Mahila Court, Theni, in Spl.S.C.No.27 of 2020 dated 31.07.2023 are set aside. The appellant is acquitted of all charges. The bail bonds, if any, shall stand discharged.
Law Points
- Benefit of doubt
- Inconsistent testimony
- Lack of corroboration
- Presumption of innocence
- Standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt
