Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Manikandan, was convicted by the Sessions (Fast Track Mahila) Judge, Namakkal, for offences under Sections 5(l) and 5(j)(ii) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012, and sentenced to 20 years rigorous imprisonment. The case arose from a complaint by the victim's father alleging that the appellant, an auto driver, had forcible sexual intercourse with his minor daughter on multiple occasions, leading to pregnancy. The victim, a 17-year-old girl, worked at a hospital and the appellant allegedly developed a love affair with her. The prosecution examined 17 witnesses and relied on medical reports and the victim's statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. The trial court convicted the appellant. On appeal, the High Court scrutinized the evidence and found material inconsistencies. The victim's testimony contradicted the medical evidence which showed no signs of recent sexual activity. There was also a significant delay in lodging the FIR without proper explanation. The court noted that the victim's version was not corroborated by independent witnesses and the prosecution failed to explain the discrepancies. Consequently, the High Court held that the prosecution did not prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and set aside the conviction, acquitting the appellant.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Appreciation of Evidence - Sexual Offences - POCSO Act, 2012 - Sections 5(l) and 5(j)(ii) - The court examined the credibility of the victim's testimony and found inconsistencies with medical evidence and delay in lodging FIR - Held that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt, and the appellant is entitled to acquittal (Paras 10-25).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellant under Sections 5(l) and 5(j)(ii) of the POCSO 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
- Appreciation of evidence in sexual offences
- Corroboration of victim testimony
- Delay in FIR
- Medical evidence contradiction
- Benefit of doubt
