Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Vishwas Somnath Bansode, was convicted by the Special Judge & District Judge-1, Pune under Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 4 and 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 for allegedly sexually abusing a minor boy, Master X, on 19 November 2013. The prosecution alleged that the appellant took the victim upstairs and attempted to have intercourse through his anus. The victim's aunt, Jyoti Waghmare, lodged a report after the victim disclosed the abuse. The trial court sentenced the appellant to 10 years rigorous imprisonment under Section 377 IPC and Section 4 POCSO Act, and 5 years under Section 8 POCSO Act. The appellant appealed to the Bombay High Court. The High Court examined the evidence, including the testimony of the victim (PW1), the aunt (PW2), and medical witnesses. The court found that the victim's testimony was inconsistent and unreliable. The medical evidence did not show any injuries or signs of sexual assault. The victim's conduct, such as continuing to play with the appellant after the alleged incident, contradicted the allegations. The court also noted that the prosecution failed to examine key witnesses, such as the sister of the appellant who allegedly saw them together. The High Court held that the prosecution did not prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and acquitted the appellant, giving him the benefit of doubt.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Unnatural Offences - Section 377 IPC - Acquittal - Inconsistent Testimony - The victim's testimony was found to be inconsistent and unreliable, lacking corroboration from medical evidence or other witnesses - Held that the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt (Paras 1-10). B) Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 - Aggravated Penetrative Sexual Assault - Section 4 - Acquittal - The medical evidence did not support the allegations of penetrative sexual assault, and the victim's conduct was inconsistent with the alleged abuse - Held that the conviction under Section 4 was not sustainable (Paras 1-10). C) Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 - Sexual Assault - Section 8 - Acquittal - The evidence of the victim was not corroborated by any independent witness or medical report, and there were material contradictions - Held that the benefit of doubt must be given to the appellant (Paras 1-10).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellant under Section 377 IPC and Sections 4 and 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 is sustainable based on the evidence on record.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. Conviction and sentence set aside. Appellant acquitted of all charges. Bail bonds cancelled.
Law Points
- Acquittal
- Inconsistent evidence
- Lack of corroboration
- Unreliable testimony
- Medical evidence
- Section 377 IPC
- Section 4 POCSO Act
- Section 8 POCSO Act
- Benefit of doubt
