Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Naresh @ Lalo Rayaji Rathod, was convicted by the Special & Additional Sessions Judge, Bharuch in Special POCSO Case No. 56/2015 for offences under Sections 363, 366, 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 4 and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. He was sentenced to various terms of imprisonment, the longest being ten years under Section 6 of POCSO Act, with all sentences to run concurrently. The appellant filed an appeal under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the conviction. The High Court heard arguments from Mr. Aamir Pathan for the appellant and Ms. C.M. Shah, APP for the respondent-State. The court examined the evidence, particularly the testimony of the victim (PW-1). The victim stated that she was kidnapped and raped by the appellant, but her testimony contained significant inconsistencies. She initially stated that the incident occurred on 15.06.2015, but later said it was on 16.06.2015. She also claimed that the appellant took her to a farm and raped her, but in cross-examination, she admitted that she did not know the appellant and that he was not present at the time of the alleged incident. The medical evidence did not show any signs of recent sexual intercourse or injuries. The prosecution also failed to produce any documentary evidence to prove the victim's age, which is essential for an offence under POCSO Act. The court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The inconsistencies in the victim's testimony, lack of corroboration from medical evidence, and failure to prove age created reasonable doubt. The court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction, and acquitted the appellant of all charges. The appellant was ordered to be set at liberty forthwith if not required in any other case.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Appeal Against Conviction - Section 374 CrPC - Acquittal - The appellant challenged his conviction for offences under IPC and POCSO Act. The High Court found that the victim's testimony was inconsistent regarding the date of incident and the appellant's presence, and the medical evidence did not corroborate the allegation of rape. The court held that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt and acquitted the appellant. (Paras 1-8) B) Evidence Law - Testimony of Victim - Corroboration - Inconsistencies - The victim gave contradictory statements about the date of the incident and whether the appellant was present. The court held that such inconsistencies create reasonable doubt and the benefit must go to the accused. (Paras 3-6) C) POCSO Act - Age of Victim - Proof - Section 4 and 6 - The prosecution did not produce any documentary evidence to prove the victim's age. The court noted that without proof of age, the offence under POCSO Act cannot be established. (Para 7) D) Indian Penal Code - Rape - Section 376 - Medical Evidence - The medical report did not show any signs of recent sexual intercourse or injuries. The court held that the absence of corroborative medical evidence weakens the prosecution case. (Para 6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellant under Sections 363, 366, 376 IPC and Sections 4 and 6 of POCSO Act is sustainable based on the evidence on record.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. Conviction set aside. Appellant acquitted of all charges. Ordered to be set at liberty forthwith if not required in any other case.
Law Points
- Acquittal in POCSO and IPC cases requires strict proof of age and penetration
- Inconsistencies in victim's testimony and lack of medical corroboration lead to benefit of doubt
- Section 374 CrPC allows appeal against conviction
