Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Rahul Shingade, was convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Gadchiroli in POCSO Case No.1/2015 for offences under Section 376(2)(i) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, and sentenced to ten years rigorous imprisonment. The case arose from an FIR lodged on 13.11.2014 by Deorao (PW1), father of a five-year-old victim, alleging that on 06.11.2014, the appellant called the victim to his shoe shop and forced her to perform oral sex. The victim disclosed the incident to her mother Soni (PW2) on 12.11.2014, leading to the FIR. The prosecution examined six witnesses, including the victim (PW3), her mother (PW2), and the investigating officer (PW6). The trial court convicted the appellant based on the victim's testimony. On appeal, the High Court re-appreciated the evidence and found material inconsistencies. The victim in her testimony stated that the appellant inserted his penis into her mouth, but the medical evidence (Exh.30) showed no injury or abnormality in her mouth or private parts. The mother (PW2) testified that the victim told her the appellant asked her to lick his organ, not that he inserted it. The court held that the victim's version was not corroborated by medical evidence and was inconsistent with her mother's testimony. The delay in filing the FIR was explained, but the lack of corroboration and contradictions created reasonable doubt. The court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction, and acquitted the appellant, giving him the benefit of doubt.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Rape of Minor - Section 376(2)(i) IPC, Section 4 POCSO Act - Conviction based on victim's testimony - Held that conviction can be based on sole testimony of victim if it is reliable and inspires confidence, but in this case, the victim's testimony was inconsistent with medical evidence and her mother's testimony, creating doubt about the occurrence of oral sex. (Paras 1-10) B) Evidence Law - Corroboration - Medical Evidence - Inconsistency - Held that when medical evidence contradicts the victim's version regarding the nature of sexual act, the prosecution must explain the discrepancy; failure to do so entitles the accused to benefit of doubt. (Paras 8-10) C) Criminal Procedure - Appeal against Conviction - Appreciation of Evidence - Held that appellate court can re-appreciate evidence and interfere with findings if they are perverse or based on no evidence. (Paras 1-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellant under Section 376(2)(i) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 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
- Conviction under Section 376(2)(i) IPC and Section 4 POCSO Act requires corroboration of victim's testimony in cases of minor inconsistencies
- Medical evidence contradicting oral sex allegation weakens prosecution case
- Delay in FIR filing not fatal if explained
- Benefit of doubt given when prosecution fails to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt
