Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Nagappa, was convicted by the II Additional District and Sessions (Special) Judge, D.K., Mangaluru, in Special Case No.39/2017 for offences punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Sections 5 and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012. The conviction was based on the complaint of the victim (PW1), who alleged that the appellant committed rape on her. The appellant challenged the conviction before the High Court of Karnataka. The High Court heard the appeal and examined the evidence. The court found that the testimony of the victim (PW1) was inconsistent and contradictory. The victim had stated in her complaint that the incident occurred on a particular date, but in her evidence she gave a different date. She also stated that she did not inform anyone about the incident, but later claimed she told her mother. There was no corroboration of her evidence by any other witness or medical evidence. The court held that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. The court noted that the victim's evidence was not reliable and that the accused was entitled to the benefit of doubt. Consequently, the High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence, and acquitted the appellant.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Rape - Section 376 IPC - Inconsistent Testimony - The victim's testimony was inconsistent and contradictory, and there was no corroboration of her evidence - Held that conviction cannot be based on such testimony (Paras 5-8). B) Criminal Law - POCSO Act - Sections 5 and 6 - Aggravated Penetrative Sexual Assault - The prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt as the victim's evidence was not reliable and there was no medical or other corroboration - Held that the accused is entitled to benefit of doubt (Paras 5-8).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellant under Section 376 IPC and Sections 5 and 6 of POCSO Act is sustainable based on the evidence on record.
Final Decision
The appeal is allowed. The judgment of conviction and sentence dated 22.08.2019 passed by the II Additional District and Sessions (Special) Judge, D.K., Mangaluru, in Spl.C.No.39/2017 is set aside. The appellant is acquitted of the offences charged. His bail bonds stand cancelled.
Law Points
- Benefit of doubt
- Inconsistent testimony
- Lack of corroboration
- Presumption of innocence
- Proof beyond reasonable doubt
