Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Somappa @ Swamy, was convicted by the Special Judge, Koppal, in Spl. POCSO (S.C.) No. 35/2015 for offences under Section 376 IPC and Section 5(1) r/w Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012, and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for ten years with a fine. The case arose from a complaint that the accused, on 02.08.2015, kidnapped a 16-year-old girl, induced her with a promise of marriage, and had sexual intercourse with her in a garden and later in a room. The prosecution examined 16 witnesses and marked 18 exhibits. The trial court convicted the accused based on the victim's testimony and medical evidence. On appeal, the High Court of Karnataka at Dharwad examined the evidence. The court noted that the victim's age was not conclusively proved: the medical report estimated her age between 16-18 years, and the school records were not properly exhibited. The victim's testimony was inconsistent regarding the place of incident and she admitted to a consensual relationship. The court held that the prosecution failed to prove the victim's minority beyond reasonable doubt, and the inconsistencies in her testimony created reasonable doubt. Consequently, the court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction, and acquitted the accused, giving him the benefit of doubt.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Rape and POCSO - Age of Victim - Proof of Minority - Section 376 IPC, Section 5(1) r/w Section 6 POCSO Act, 2012 - The prosecution failed to conclusively prove that the victim was below 18 years as the medical evidence and school records were contradictory and not properly exhibited. The court held that the age of the victim is a crucial factor for conviction under POCSO Act and must be established beyond reasonable doubt. (Paras 10-15) B) Criminal Law - Rape and POCSO - Inconsistent Testimony - Benefit of Doubt - Section 376 IPC, Section 5(1) r/w Section 6 POCSO Act, 2012 - The victim's testimony contained material inconsistencies regarding the place and manner of the alleged incident, and she admitted to a consensual relationship. The court held that such inconsistencies create reasonable doubt, entitling the accused to acquittal. (Paras 16-20) C) Criminal Law - Rape and POCSO - Consent - Minor Victim - Section 376 IPC, Section 5(1) r/w Section 6 POCSO Act, 2012 - Even if the victim was a minor, the evidence showed she willingly accompanied the accused and had consensual sexual intercourse. The court held that in the absence of force or coercion, and given the inconsistencies, the conviction cannot be sustained. (Paras 21-25)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the victim was a minor and that the accused committed aggravated penetrative sexual assault under the POCSO Act and rape under IPC.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. The judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 14.02.2017/15.02.2017 passed by the District and Sessions/Special Judge, Koppal, in Spl. POCSO (S.C.) No. 35/2015 is set aside. The appellant is acquitted of all charges. His bail bonds stand cancelled.
Law Points
- Age of victim must be proved beyond reasonable doubt in POCSO cases
- Inconsistencies in victim's testimony can lead to acquittal
- Benefit of doubt given to accused when prosecution fails to prove essential ingredients
