Case Note & Summary
The appellant was convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Chandrapur, under Sections 5 and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act) and Section 376(2)(i) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), and sentenced to 12 years rigorous imprisonment. The case arose from a report lodged by the victim's mother (PW1) on 08-05-2013, alleging that the appellant called the victim (PW2) to his house, removed her Bermuda, licked her private part, and attempted to remove his pant, but the victim shouted and a neighbour (PW3) arrived, causing the appellant to give bread to the victim and she left. Initially, FIR was registered under Sections 354A(1), 504, 506 IPC, but later charges were framed under POCSO Act and Section 376(2)(i) IPC. The prosecution examined eight witnesses, including the victim, her mother, a neighbour, a doctor, and the investigating officer. The appellant denied the allegations, claiming false implication due to a dispute with the complainant. The High Court, on appeal, examined the evidence and found that the victim's testimony was inconsistent and unreliable. The medical evidence (PW4) did not show any injury or signs of sexual assault. The neighbour (PW3) did not support the prosecution case. The court held that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt, and the conviction was based on weak and contradictory evidence. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the conviction and sentence were set aside, and the appellant was acquitted.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Appreciation of Evidence - Sexual Offences - POCSO Act, 2012, Sections 5, 6; IPC, 1860, Section 376(2)(i) - Conviction based solely on uncorroborated testimony of victim - Held that in cases of sexual offences, while the testimony of the victim alone can be sufficient, it must be reliable, consistent, and inspire confidence; in this case, the victim's testimony was found to be inconsistent and unreliable, and medical evidence did not support the allegation of sexual assault, leading to acquittal (Paras 1-15).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellant under Sections 5 and 6 of the POCSO Act and Section 376(2)(i) of the IPC is sustainable based on the evidence on record.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. Conviction and sentence set aside. Appellant acquitted of all charges.
Law Points
- Appreciation of evidence in sexual offences
- Corroboration of victim testimony
- Medical evidence in sexual assault cases
- Standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt
Case Details
2018 LawText (BOM) (06) 172
Criminal Appeal No.22 of 2017
R.M. Tahaliyani, J.S. Chilotra for appellant; Mrs Geeta Tiwari, APP for State
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal appeal against conviction under POCSO Act and IPC for sexual assault of a minor.
Remedy Sought
Appellant sought acquittal by setting aside the conviction and sentence.
Filing Reason
Appellant was convicted by the trial court for aggravated penetrative sexual assault under POCSO Act and rape under IPC.
Previous Decisions
Trial court convicted the appellant in Special Child Case No.24 of 2013 on 27-06-2018.
Issues
Whether the conviction is sustainable based on the evidence of the victim and other witnesses.
Whether the medical evidence corroborates the allegation of sexual assault.
Whether the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt.
Submissions/Arguments
Appellant argued that the victim's testimony was inconsistent and unreliable, and medical evidence did not support the prosecution case.
Prosecution argued that the victim's testimony alone is sufficient for conviction in sexual offence cases.
Ratio Decidendi
In sexual offence cases, while the testimony of the victim alone can be sufficient for conviction, it must be reliable, consistent, and inspire confidence. In this case, the victim's testimony was found to be inconsistent and unreliable, and medical evidence did not support the allegation of sexual assault. Therefore, the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt, and the appellant is entitled to acquittal.
Judgment Excerpts
The appellant herein has been convicted by the impugned judgment and order under Section 397(2)(i) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and under Sections 5 and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2002 (POCSO Act) and he has been sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 12 years and to pay fine of Rs. 5000/ on both counts, both the sentences to run concurrently.
The prosecution of the appellant under the aforesaid provisions of IPC and POCSO Act was initiated on a report lodged by (PW1) Rama Ramteke on 08052013 in Police Station Chandrapur City.
Procedural History
FIR registered on 08-05-2013 under Sections 354A(1), 504, 506 IPC. Chargesheet filed. Charge framed on 31-05-2014 under Section 9(m) POCSO Act and Sections 354B, 506, 504 IPC. Fresh charge framed on 19-03-2015 under Sections 5 and 6 POCSO Act and Section 376(2)(i) IPC. Trial concluded with conviction on 27-06-2018. Appeal filed in High Court.
Acts & Sections
- Indian Penal Code, 1860: 376(2)(i), 354A(1), 354B, 504, 506
- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012: 5, 6, 9(m)
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: 313
