Case Note & Summary
The appellant, P. Prakash, was convicted by the Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Dharmapuri, under Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act) and sentenced to 10 years rigorous imprisonment. The case arose from a complaint by a 14-year-old girl (PW1) alleging that her cousin brother, the appellant, had forcible sexual intercourse with her on several occasions since she was in 9th standard. The victim claimed she became pregnant and the appellant advised her to falsely claim kidnapping and rape. The trial court convicted the appellant based on the victim's testimony. On appeal, the Madras High Court examined the evidence and found material inconsistencies. The victim's date of birth was not conclusively proved, and her testimony regarding the place of occurrence and the accused's identity was contradictory. The court noted that the victim's statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. differed from her deposition. The medical evidence did not support the prosecution's case. The court held that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt and acquitted the appellant, giving him the benefit of doubt.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - POCSO Act - Aggravated Penetrative Sexual Assault - Section 6 of POCSO Act - Conviction set aside due to inconsistencies in victim's testimony and lack of corroboration - The victim's statement was found to be unreliable with material contradictions regarding the date of birth, place of occurrence, and the accused's identity - Held that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt (Paras 10-25).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellant under Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 is sustainable based on the evidence on record.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. Conviction and sentence set aside. Appellant acquitted of all charges.
Law Points
- Presumption of innocence
- Burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt
- Corroboration of victim testimony
- Inconsistencies in evidence
- Benefit of doubt
