Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Santosh Thorat, was convicted by the Special Judge, Ahmednagar, for offences under Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act) and Sections 376(2)(f) and 366A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). He was sentenced to ten years rigorous imprisonment for the POCSO offence and five years for the IPC offences. The case arose from an incident where the victim, a minor girl, was allegedly kidnapped and raped by the appellant. The prosecution examined the victim, her mother, and other witnesses, and relied on medical evidence and school records to prove the victim's age. However, the High Court found several inconsistencies in the prosecution case. The victim's testimony was contradictory regarding the date of the incident and the places she was taken. The medical evidence did not support the allegation of rape as no injuries were found. The school records were not properly proved, and the victim's mother admitted she did not know the exact age of her daughter. The prosecution also failed to examine the panch witness and the doctor who examined the victim. The High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the victim's age beyond reasonable doubt, which was essential for an offence under the POCSO Act. Additionally, the inconsistencies in the evidence and the failure to examine material witnesses entitled the appellant to the benefit of doubt. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the conviction was set aside, and the appellant was acquitted of all charges.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - POCSO Act - Age of Victim - Proof of Age - Section 3/4 POCSO Act, 2012 - The prosecution failed to prove that the victim was a child below 18 years as required under the POCSO Act. The medical evidence and school records were not conclusive, and the victim's mother admitted she did not know the victim's exact age. Held that the age of the victim must be proved beyond reasonable doubt for an offence under the POCSO Act (Paras 10-12). B) Criminal Law - Rape - Inconsistencies in Evidence - Sections 376(2)(f) and 366A IPC - The victim's testimony was inconsistent with the medical evidence and the FIR. The victim claimed she was taken to various places but the medical report showed no injuries. The prosecution also failed to examine the panch witness and the doctor who examined the victim. Held that such inconsistencies and failure to examine material witnesses entitle the accused to benefit of doubt (Paras 13-16). C) Criminal Law - Appeal - Acquittal - Benefit of Doubt - The appellant was convicted by the Special Judge but the High Court found the prosecution evidence unreliable. The appeal was allowed and the appellant was acquitted of all charges. Held that when the prosecution fails to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, the accused is entitled to acquittal (Paras 17-18).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellant under Section 4 of the POCSO Act and Sections 376(2)(f) and 366A IPC is sustainable in law given the inconsistencies in the prosecution evidence and failure to prove the age of the victim.
Final Decision
The appeal is allowed. The judgment and order dated 29.03.2016 passed by the Special Judge, Ahmednagar in Sessions Case No.365 of 2014 is set aside. The appellant is acquitted of all charges. His bail bonds stand cancelled.
Law Points
- Age of victim must be proved beyond reasonable doubt in POCSO cases
- Inconsistencies in prosecution evidence lead to benefit of doubt
- Failure to examine material witness weakens prosecution case
