Case Note & Summary
The case involves an appeal against the conviction of Vijay Manoharrao Jawanjal under Section 376AB of the Indian Penal Code and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 for the alleged penetrative sexual assault of an 8-year-old girl. The incident allegedly occurred on 08.03.2019 when the accused offered the victim a sweet and took her inside a Samaj Mandir, where he forcibly touched his penis to her private part. The victim's mother lodged a report the same day. The trial court convicted the accused based on the testimony of the victim and her mother, medical evidence, and the presumption under Section 29 of the POCSO Act. The accused appealed, arguing that the evidence was unreliable, the victim's testimony was tutored, and the medical evidence did not corroborate the assault. The High Court analyzed the evidence and found that the prosecution failed to prove foundational facts beyond reasonable doubt. The court noted that the conduct of the informant and victim was unnatural, the victim's evidence appeared tutored, and the medical officer's evidence did not clearly support penetrative sexual assault. The court held that the presumption under Section 29 of the POCSO Act is not absolute and cannot be invoked without foundational facts. Consequently, the court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction, and acquitted the accused, giving him the benefit of doubt.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Presumption under POCSO Act - Section 29 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 - Foundational Facts - The presumption under Section 29 is not absolute and operates only after the prosecution proves foundational facts against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The court held that the learned trial judge committed a patent mistake in understanding the law, and the benefit of doubt cannot be denied on the spacious plea of presumption. (Paras 8-12) B) Evidence Law - Child Witness - Tutoring and Reliability - The evidence of the child victim must be scrutinized for tutoring and must be natural and trustworthy. In this case, the conduct of the informant and victim was found unbelievable, and the victim's evidence appeared to be a result of tutoring by her mother. (Paras 6, 8) C) Medical Evidence - Penetrative Sexual Assault - Corroboration - Medical evidence must corroborate the version of penetrative sexual assault. The medical officer's evidence regarding the age of inflammation and the history not naming the accused created doubt about the occurrence of the incident. (Paras 6-7) D) Criminal Law - Benefit of Doubt - The accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt if the prosecution fails to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The court held that the evidence on record created doubt, and the accused was entitled to acquittal. (Paras 8, 12)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the presumption under Section 29 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 can be invoked without the prosecution first proving foundational facts beyond reasonable doubt, and whether the conviction under Section 376AB of the Indian Penal Code and Section 6 of the POCSO Act is sustainable on the basis of the evidence adduced.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. The judgment and order dated 22.01.2021 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-1, Achalpur is set aside. The appellant/accused is acquitted of the offences punishable under Section 376AB of the Indian Penal Code and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. The appellant is in jail, and he be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other case.
Law Points
- Presumption under Section 29 of POCSO Act is not absolute
- Foundational facts must be proved beyond reasonable doubt before presumption operates
- Child witness testimony must be scrutinized for tutoring
- Medical evidence must corroborate penetrative sexual assault
- Benefit of doubt cannot be denied on basis of presumption
