Case Note & Summary
The appellant, M. Vigneshwaran, was convicted by the Special Court under POCSO Act for penetrative sexual assault and kidnapping of a 17-year-old girl. The victim had attempted self-immolation and gave two dying declarations: one to the Sub-Inspector of Police and another to the Judicial Magistrate. The first declaration did not name the accused, while the second did. The High Court found these declarations contradictory and unreliable. The prosecution also failed to produce corroborative evidence such as the alleged video recording or medical evidence linking the accused. The court held that the benefit of doubt must be given to the accused and acquitted him of all charges.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Dying Declaration - Reliability - Inconsistent Dying Declarations - Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Section 32(1) - The court examined two dying declarations of the victim which were contradictory in material particulars regarding the identity of the assailant and the manner of occurrence. The first declaration to the Sub-Inspector did not name the accused, while the second to the Magistrate named him. Held that such inconsistency creates doubt and cannot form the sole basis for conviction (Paras 10-15). B) Criminal Law - POCSO Act - Penetrative Sexual Assault - Corroboration - Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, Section 6 - The prosecution failed to provide independent corroboration to the dying declarations, such as medical evidence or eyewitnesses. The court noted that the victim's burn injuries were self-inflicted and the alleged video recording was not recovered. Held that conviction cannot be sustained without corroborative evidence (Paras 16-20). C) Criminal Law - Benefit of Doubt - Acquittal - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 363 - The court found that the prosecution did not prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. The inconsistencies in the dying declarations and lack of corroboration entitled the accused to the benefit of doubt. Held that the appeal is allowed and the conviction is set aside (Paras 21-25).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellant under Section 6 of the POCSO Act and Section 363 IPC is sustainable based on the dying declarations and other evidence on record.
Final Decision
The appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court in Spl.S.C.No.23 of 2021 dated 27.03.2023 are set aside. The appellant is acquitted of all charges. The fine amount, if paid, shall be refunded to the appellant.
Law Points
- Dying declaration must be consistent and reliable
- conviction cannot be based on contradictory dying declarations
- benefit of doubt must be given to accused when prosecution fails to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt
