Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Sundaram, was convicted by the Fast Track Mahila Court, Krishnagiri, for offences under Section 5(l) r/w 6 of the POCSO Act and Section 506(ii) IPC, and sentenced to 20 years and 5 years rigorous imprisonment respectively. The prosecution alleged that on 09.12.2019 and 14.12.2019, the appellant, a neighbour, sexually assaulted a 16-year-old victim (PW2) with mental health issues, and threatened her. The victim's mother (PW1) lodged a complaint on 16.12.2019. The trial court convicted the appellant based on the victim's testimony. On appeal, the High Court examined the evidence. The victim's testimony was inconsistent: she initially stated the assault occurred on 09.12.2019 thrice, but later claimed it was once. Medical evidence (PW9) showed no signs of recent sexual assault, and the doctor opined that the victim's hymen was intact with old tears, inconsistent with forcible penetration. PW1 and PW3 (father) admitted the victim had mental issues and was undergoing treatment. The grandmother (PW4) did not support the prosecution. The court found that the victim's testimony lacked corroboration and was contradicted by medical evidence. The court also noted that the FIR was lodged after a delay of two days without explanation. The court held that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt, and the appellant was entitled to the benefit of doubt. The appeal was allowed, the conviction and sentence were set aside, and the appellant was directed to be released forthwith.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - POCSO Act - Penetrative Sexual Assault - Section 5(l) r/w 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 - Conviction reversed due to inconsistencies in victim's testimony and lack of corroboration - Victim's version contradicted by medical evidence and other prosecution witnesses - Held that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt (Paras 10-22). B) Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code - Criminal Intimidation - Section 506(ii) IPC - Conviction set aside as the alleged threat was not independently proved and was linked to the sexual assault charge which was not established - Held that the offence of criminal intimidation cannot stand alone without the principal offence (Paras 23-24).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellant under Section 5(l) r/w 6 of POCSO Act and Section 506(ii) IPC is sustainable based on the evidence on record.
Final Decision
The appeal is allowed. The judgment of conviction and sentence dated 17.11.2021 in Spl.S.C.No.35 of 2020 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Krishnagiri, is set aside. The appellant is acquitted of all charges. The appellant is directed to be released forthwith unless his presence is required in any other case.
Law Points
- Benefit of doubt
- Inconsistent testimony
- Lack of corroboration
- Medical evidence contradiction
- Acquittal in POCSO cases
