Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Navin Dhaniram Baraiye, was convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur in Special POCSO Case No. 218/2016 for offences under Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) read with Sections 3 and 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act). He was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment of 7 years and a fine of Rs. 5000/-. The prosecution case was based on a complaint lodged by Sarika (PW1) on 18.06.2016, alleging that her son (victim no.1) and his friend (victim no.2) had been sexually assaulted by the appellant. According to the complaint, when PW1 went to check on her son at her sister's house, she found victim no.1 lying on a bed with his pants down and victim no.2 sitting on him. Upon inquiry, victim no.2 stated that the appellant had taken him to his house, played mobile games, and committed anal sex. Victim no.1 also allegedly stated that the appellant had committed similar acts multiple times. The police registered an FIR and investigated. The trial court convicted the appellant based on the testimonies of the child victims and their mothers. The appellant appealed to the Bombay High Court. The High Court analyzed the evidence and found material inconsistencies. Victim no.2 initially stated in his testimony that the incident occurred at the appellant's house, but later contradicted himself. Victim no.1's testimony was also inconsistent regarding the timing and details. The medical evidence did not support the allegations of anal intercourse. The court held that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt due to lack of corroboration and contradictions in the child witnesses' statements. Consequently, the High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction, and acquitted the appellant.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Sexual Offences - Corroboration of Child Testimony - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 377; Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, Sections 3, 4 - The court examined whether the uncorroborated and inconsistent testimonies of child victims could sustain a conviction for unnatural offences - Held that the evidence of the victims was contradictory and lacked corroboration from medical or other independent sources, thereby failing to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt (Paras 1-10). B) Evidence Law - Appreciation of Evidence - Inconsistencies in Testimony - Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Section 134 - The court considered the effect of material inconsistencies between the statements of the two child victims regarding the time and manner of the alleged offence - Held that such inconsistencies create reasonable doubt, entitling the appellant to acquittal (Paras 5-8).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellant under Section 377 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the POCSO Act is sustainable based on the evidence on record.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. Conviction and sentence set aside. Appellant acquitted of all charges.
Law Points
- Conviction under Section 377 IPC and POCSO Act requires corroboration of child testimony
- Inconsistencies in victim statements lead to benefit of doubt
- Medical evidence must support allegations of sexual assault
