Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Amit Shende, was convicted by the Special Judge, Nagpur, for offences under Section 376(2)(n) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act), and sentenced to ten years' rigorous imprisonment. The prosecution alleged that the appellant had a love affair with the prosecutrix from August 2014 until August 2015, during which he lured her into sexual relations on a false promise of marriage. The prosecutrix became pregnant, and when the appellant refused to marry her, she filed an FIR on 31.8.2015. The trial court convicted the appellant based on the prosecutrix's testimony and medical evidence. On appeal, the Bombay High Court examined the legality of the conviction. The court noted that the prosecutrix was a consenting party and that the relationship was consensual. The court found that the promise of marriage was not false from the inception, as the relationship continued for about a year and the appellant was also a minor at the relevant time. The court also noted inconsistencies in the prosecution's evidence, including the failure to examine the doctor who conducted the medical examination and the lack of corroboration of the prosecutrix's testimony. Regarding the age of the prosecutrix, the court observed that her date of birth was 12.3.1998, making her between 16 and 17 years during the alleged incidents, but the court held that the POCSO Act requires strict proof of minority, and the evidence was insufficient. The court concluded that the prosecution failed to prove the offences beyond reasonable doubt and allowed the appeal, setting aside the conviction and sentence.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Rape - Consent - Promise of Marriage - Section 375 IPC - Consent given under a promise of marriage is not vitiated unless the promise was false from the beginning and the accused had no intention to marry - The court held that the prosecutrix was a consenting party and the appellant did not make a false promise of marriage from the inception, as the relationship continued for a year and pregnancy occurred - Held that the conviction under Section 376(2)(n) IPC is unsustainable (Paras 7-10). B) Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 - Age of Victim - Section 2(1)(d) POCSO Act - For an offence under POCSO, the victim must be below 18 years - The court found that the prosecutrix's age was not conclusively proved as the birth certificate was not produced and the school record showed her date of birth as 12.3.1998, but the incident occurred from August 2014 to August 2015, making her between 16 and 17 years - However, the court noted that the relationship was consensual and the appellant was also a minor at the relevant time - Held that the conviction under Section 4 POCSO Act is also unsustainable (Paras 11-12). C) Evidence - Inconsistencies - Benefit of Doubt - The court found material inconsistencies in the prosecution case, including the failure to examine the doctor who conducted the medical examination and the lack of corroboration of the prosecutrix's testimony - Held that the appellant is entitled to benefit of doubt (Paras 13-14).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the appellant's conviction under Section 376(2)(n) IPC and Section 4 POCSO Act is sustainable given the prosecutrix's age and the nature of consent based on promise of marriage.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. Conviction and sentence set aside. Appellant acquitted of all charges. Fine, if paid, to be refunded.
Law Points
- Consent based on promise of marriage is not vitiated unless promise was false from inception
- Age determination for POCSO requires strict proof of minority
- Inconsistencies in prosecution evidence lead to benefit of doubt
