Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Mangesh Chandankhede, was convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge-1, Nagpur, for offences under Section 376(2)(i) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, and sentenced to 10 years rigorous imprisonment. He appealed to the Bombay High Court. The prosecution alleged that the appellant entered the victim's house through a window and raped her, a minor aged 12 years. The appellant's counsel argued that the evidence was riddled with contradictions, the FIR was delayed without explanation, and the medical evidence did not support the victim's version. The State relied on the presumption under Section 29 POCSO Act. The High Court found that the prosecution witnesses gave inconsistent statements, the delay in lodging the FIR was not satisfactorily explained, and the medical evidence contradicted the victim's account. The court held that the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and the presumption under Section 29 POCSO Act was rebutted by the inconsistencies. The appeal was allowed, conviction and sentence set aside, and the appellant was acquitted.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Rape of Minor - Section 376(2)(i) IPC, Section 4 POCSO Act - Conviction set aside - Prosecution case based on testimony of victim and mother - Evidence marred by contradictions and inconsistencies - Delay in FIR not explained - Medical evidence inconsistent with version - Held that benefit of doubt must be given to accused (Paras 1-5).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellant under Section 376(2)(i) IPC and Section 4 POCSO Act is sustainable in light of contradictions, delay in FIR, and inconsistencies in evidence.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. Conviction and sentence set aside. Appellant acquitted of all charges. Bail bonds cancelled.
Law Points
- Presumption under Section 29 POCSO Act is rebuttable
- Delay in FIR must be satisfactorily explained
- Inconsistencies in prosecution evidence lead to benefit of doubt
- Testimony of child victim must be corroborated if unreliable
Case Details
2017 LawText (BOM) (12) 140
Criminal Appeal No.393 of 2016
Shri R.S. Renu for Appellant, Shri N.B. Jawade for Respondent/State
Mangesh s/o Damodhar Chandankhede
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal appeal against conviction for rape of a minor under IPC and POCSO Act.
Remedy Sought
Appellant sought acquittal by setting aside conviction and sentence.
Filing Reason
Appellant aggrieved by judgment and order dated 23.02.2015 in Special Child Protection Case 27/2013 convicting him under Section 376(2)(i) IPC and Section 4 POCSO Act.
Previous Decisions
Trial court convicted appellant and sentenced to 10 years RI and fine.
Issues
Whether the evidence on record is reliable and free from contradictions?
Whether the delay in lodging FIR is satisfactorily explained?
Whether the medical evidence supports the prosecution version?
Whether the presumption under Section 29 POCSO Act is rebutted?
Submissions/Arguments
Appellant's counsel: Evidence marred by contradictions and omissions; FIR delayed without explanation; medical evidence inconsistent; entry through window improbable; defence of false implication probabilised.
Respondent's counsel: Evidence cogent and reliable; conviction unexceptionable; presumption under Section 29 POCSO Act not rebutted.
Ratio Decidendi
The prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt; inconsistencies and contradictions in evidence, unexplained delay in FIR, and medical evidence contradicting the victim's version create reasonable doubt, entitling the accused to acquittal. The presumption under Section 29 POCSO Act is rebuttable and stands rebutted by the infirmities in the prosecution case.
Judgment Excerpts
The evidence on record is marred by omissions partaking the nature of contradictions and inter se inconsistencies and discrepancies in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses.
The First Information Report is unreasonably delayed and no satisfactory explanation is forthcoming to explain the delay.
The version of the victim is inconsistent with the medical evidence on record.
Procedural History
Trial court convicted appellant on 23.02.2015 in Special Child Protection Case 27/2013. Appellant filed Criminal Appeal No.393 of 2016 before Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench. Judgment reserved on 15.09.2017 and pronounced on 21.12.2017.
Acts & Sections
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): 376(2)(i), 448
- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO): 3, 4, 29
