Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Rahul Dagadu Sirsat, was convicted by the Special Judge, Akot, under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (PoCSO Act) for aggravated penetrative sexual assault under Section 6 read with Section 5(k) and under Sections 450 and 452 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for house trespass. The incident allegedly occurred on 17.11.2015 when the victim, a 17-year-old mentally challenged girl with a mental age of 4.5 years, was alone at her house. The prosecution alleged that the appellant entered her house, removed her clothes, and forcibly committed sexual intercourse with her. The victim's younger brother 'A' had left to check the water tap, and upon returning, he allegedly saw the appellant committing the act. The parents were informed, and an FIR was lodged the same day. The trial court convicted the appellant and sentenced him to various terms of imprisonment. The appellant appealed to the Bombay High Court. The High Court examined the evidence and found several inconsistencies. The victim's testimony was recorded but she could not be effectively cross-examined due to her mental condition. The brother 'A' gave contradictory statements about his presence and what he saw. The medical evidence did not show any injuries or signs of sexual assault. The court also noted that the prosecution failed to explain why the brother's statement was recorded after a delay. The High Court held that the prosecution had not proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. The court emphasized that in cases involving child witnesses or mentally challenged persons, corroboration is essential. The court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction, and acquitted the appellant, giving him the benefit of doubt.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Benefit of Doubt - Inconsistent Evidence - The appellant was convicted for aggravated penetrative sexual assault under PoCSO Act and house trespass under IPC. The High Court found material inconsistencies in the testimonies of prosecution witnesses, particularly regarding the presence of the victim's brother at the scene and the time of the incident. The court held that when the prosecution case is riddled with contradictions and improbabilities, the accused is entitled to benefit of doubt. (Paras 10-14) B) Evidence Law - Child Witness - Credibility - The victim, a mentally challenged person with alleged mental age of 4.5 years, was examined as a witness. The court noted that her testimony was not corroborated by other evidence and that the prosecution failed to establish that she understood the duty of speaking truth. The court held that conviction cannot be based solely on the uncorroborated testimony of a child witness of tender age or mentally challenged person without proper corroboration. (Paras 8-9) C) Criminal Procedure - Delay in FIR - The FIR was lodged on the same day of the incident, but the court found that the explanation for delay in recording the statement of the victim's brother was not satisfactory. The court held that unexplained delay in recording statements of material witnesses can cast doubt on the prosecution case. (Para 11) D) Medical Jurisprudence - Medical Evidence - The medical evidence did not support the prosecution case of forcible sexual intercourse. The doctor who examined the victim did not find any injuries on her person or signs of recent sexual activity. The court held that medical evidence is a crucial piece of corroborative evidence in sexual assault cases and its absence weakens the prosecution case. (Para 12)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellant under Sections 6 read with 5(k) of the PoCSO Act and Sections 450 and 452 of IPC is sustainable based on the evidence on record.
Final Decision
The appeal is allowed. The judgment and order dated 8.2.2017 passed by the Special Judge, Akot, is set aside. The appellant is acquitted of all charges. His bail bonds stand cancelled.
Law Points
- Benefit of doubt
- Inconsistent evidence
- Lack of corroboration
- Mental age of victim
- Credibility of child witness
- Delay in FIR
- Medical evidence
