Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Ramprasad s/o Fagulal Amdare, was convicted by the Special Judge, POCSO Act, Nagpur, for offences under Section 6 read with Section 5(n) of the POCSO Act and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for ten years and a fine of Rs. 5000/-. The prosecution case was that on 23.07.2014 at about 10.00 a.m., the prosecutrix, a child, went to the appellant's adjacent house to bring vegetables, where the appellant caught her, dragged her inside, and forcibly committed sexual intercourse. The prosecutrix disclosed the incident to her father, who informed her mother, and a complaint was lodged. The trial court convicted the appellant. On appeal, the High Court examined the evidence and found material contradictions and inconsistencies. The prosecutrix (PW1) stated in cross-examination that the incident occurred at 12:00 noon, not 10:00 a.m., and that her mother was present at home when she returned, contradicting the mother's (PW2) statement that she was at work. The father (PW6) stated that the prosecutrix told him at 10:00 a.m., but the mother said she was informed at 12:00 noon. The medical evidence did not support the prosecution case as the doctor (PW3) found no injuries and the hymen was intact with a healed tear, inconsistent with forcible intercourse. The High Court held that these contradictions were material and went to the root of the case, making the prosecution version unreliable. The court also noted that the appellant was a relative and there was no reason to falsely implicate him, but the burden of proof was on the prosecution. The appeal was allowed, the conviction and sentence were set aside, and the appellant was acquitted.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Aggravated Penetrative Sexual Assault - Section 6 read with Section 5(n) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 - Conviction based on sole testimony of prosecutrix - Material contradictions and inconsistencies in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, including the prosecutrix, her mother, and father, regarding the time of incident, place of incident, and disclosure - Held that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt, and the appellant is entitled to acquittal (Paras 10-15).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellant under Section 6 read with Section 5(n) of the POCSO Act is sustainable in light of material contradictions and inconsistencies in the prosecution evidence.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. Conviction and sentence set aside. Appellant acquitted of all charges.
Law Points
- Aggravated Penetrative Sexual Assault
- POCSO Act
- Section 6
- Section 5(n)
- Section 5(p)
- Section 376(2)(f) IPC
- Corroboration of Testimony
- Contradictions in Evidence
- Benefit of Doubt
