Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Umesh Sanghele, was convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Akola, for offences under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act) and the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for allegedly sexually assaulting a six-year-old girl. The incident was reported to have occurred on 19 November 2016, but the FIR was lodged only on 30 November 2016, after an 11-day delay. The victim's mother (PW2) lodged the report after the victim allegedly identified the appellant while passing a pan stall with her father. The appellant was arrested, and a knife was recovered at his instance. The trial court convicted him and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for 20 years under Section 4(2) of the POCSO Act, among other sentences. The appellant appealed to the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench. The High Court re-appreciated the evidence and found several flaws in the prosecution's case. The delay in lodging the FIR was not satisfactorily explained; the victim herself stated that she had gone to the police station within four days of the incident, contradicting the prosecution's version. The Investigating Officer failed to conduct a Test Identification Parade (TIP), which was crucial since the appellant was a stranger to the victim. The medical evidence did not corroborate the victim's claim of digital penetration, as the injuries were not age-specific. The victim and her brother were found to be tutored witnesses, and their testimony contained inconsistencies. The court held that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt beyond reasonable doubt and allowed the appeal, setting aside the conviction and sentence.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Delay in Lodging FIR - Inordinate and Unexplained Delay - Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, Sections 4(2), 8; Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 376(2)(i), 363, 354-A - The incident occurred on 19.11.2016 but the FIR was lodged on 30.11.2016, an 11-day delay. The victim's own testimony that she visited the police station within 4 days contradicted the prosecution's claim that the delay was due to the accused being unknown. The court held that the delay was not satisfactorily explained and cast doubt on the prosecution's case (Paras 10-12). B) Criminal Law - Identification of Accused - Failure to Conduct Test Identification Parade - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 376(2)(i), 363, 354-A; Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, Sections 4(2), 8 - The accused was not known to the victim prior to the incident. The Investigating Officer did not conduct a Test Identification Parade. The court held that the failure to hold a TIP was fatal to the prosecution's case, as the identification in court was not reliable due to inconsistencies (Paras 13-14). C) Evidence Law - Corroboration of Testimony - Medical Evidence - Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, Sections 4(2), 8; Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 376(2)(i), 363, 354-A - The medical evidence did not corroborate the victim's version of digital penetration. The injuries found were not age-specific and could have been caused by other reasons. The court held that the medical evidence was insufficient to support the conviction (Paras 15-16). D) Criminal Law - Tutored Witness - Reliability of Child Witness - Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, Sections 4(2), 8; Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 376(2)(i), 363, 354-A - The victim and her brother were found to be tutored witnesses. Their evidence contained material inconsistencies and contradictions. The court held that it was unsafe to base a conviction on such evidence (Paras 17-18).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellant under the POCSO Act and IPC is sustainable in light of inordinate delay in lodging the FIR, failure to conduct a Test Identification Parade, and inconsistencies in the prosecution evidence.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. Impugned judgment and order dated 06.12.2021 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Akola is set aside. Appellant is acquitted of all charges. Bail bonds stand cancelled. Fine, if paid, be refunded to appellant.
Law Points
- Delay in lodging FIR
- Failure to conduct Test Identification Parade
- Inconsistencies in victim's testimony
- Lack of corroboration by medical evidence
- Tutored witness
