The appellant was convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Akola, for sexual offences under the POCSO Act and Indian Penal Code (IPC), including Section 376(2)(i) for rape and Sections 363 and 354-A for kidnapping and sexual harassment. The High Court overturned the conviction on appeal due to significant inconsistencies in the prosecution’s evidence, unexplained delay in lodging the FIR, and questionable identification of the accused. The court emphasized that in serious cases involving stringent punishments, the evidence must be beyond reasonable doubt, and procedural lapses such as the failure to conduct a test identification parade further weakened the prosecution's case.

1. Background and Conviction (Para 1-2)

The appellant, Umesh Dilip Sanghele, was convicted under the POCSO Act and IPC for alleged sexual assault of a 6-year-old girl. The trial court sentenced him to 20 years of rigorous imprisonment, among other penalties.

2. Incident and Delay in FIR (Para 2-3)

The alleged incident occurred on 19.11.2016, but the FIR was filed 11 days later, on 30.11.2016. The prosecution claimed the victim was lured, assaulted, and threatened by the appellant. However, the delay in filing the report was not sufficiently explained, raising doubts about the incident’s credibility.

3. Identification and Investigation Flaws (Para 4-6)

The victim identified the accused 10 days after the incident when she saw him near a pan stall. The police did not conduct a test identification parade, which is crucial in cases where the accused is unknown. The court noted this as a serious procedural lapse.

4. Testimonies of Victim and Family (Para 7-18)

The testimonies of the victim and her family members were inconsistent. The victim’s brother and father gave conflicting accounts regarding the identification of the accused. The victim’s statements about the assault were not corroborated by medical evidence, further weakening the case.

5. Medical Evidence and Recovery of Weapon (Para 19-20)

The medical examination, conducted 12 days after the incident, revealed redness but was insufficient to conclusively prove digital penetration as alleged. The knife recovered from the appellant’s house was deemed an ordinary kitchen knife, casting doubt on its use in the crime.

6. Court’s Observations and Acquittal (Para 21-25)

The court concluded that the evidence presented did not establish the appellant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The delay in filing the FIR, inconsistencies in witness testimonies, and lack of procedural diligence (such as not conducting a test identification parade) led to the appellant’s acquittal. The presumption under Section 29 of the POCSO Act was not triggered due to weak foundational evidence.

Acts and Sections Discussed:

• POCSO Act, 2012:
  • Section 4(2): Punishment for penetrative sexual assault.
  • Section 8: Punishment for sexual assault.
• Indian Penal Code:
  • Section 376(2)(i): Rape of a minor.
  • Section 363: Kidnapping.
  • Section 354-A: Sexual harassment.
• Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC):
  • Test Identification Parade and its significance.
• POCSO Act - Section 29: Presumption of guilt under the POCSO Act, rebuttable upon lack of foundational evidence.

Ratio:

The principle that in criminal law, especially in cases involving severe punishments, the prosecution must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Procedural lapses like the failure to conduct a test identification parade and the unexplained delay in filing the FIR, coupled with inconsistent testimonies and lack of corroborative medical evidence, significantly undermine the prosecution's case. The court held that doubts in such cases should benefit the accused, leading to acquittal.

Subjects:

Criminal Appeal, POCSO Act, Acquittal, Delay in FIR, Evidentiary Standards.

sexual assault, criminal law, identification parade, Bombay High Court, delay in FIR, acquittal, IPC 376, legal procedure.