Case Note & Summary
The case involves an appeal against the conviction of Anil Chhotelal Chhevle under Section 5(m) punishable under Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act) and Section 376(2)(i) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). The victim, a 5-year-old girl, was allegedly sexually assaulted by the appellant on 4th February 2017. The informant, the victim's mother, reported the incident the next day after noticing dried blood stains on the victim's genitals. The victim identified the appellant as the perpetrator when he was called to their house by her father. The trial court convicted the appellant based on the victim's testimony, medical evidence showing an abrasion on the labia minora, and the mother's evidence. The appellant appealed, arguing that the identification was doubtful, the father was not examined, and no test identification parade was conducted. The High Court analyzed the evidence and found several infirmities. The mother's evidence did not clearly establish her presence during the identification, and the father, a crucial witness, was not examined. The court noted that the conduct of the parents in calling the accused to their house was unnatural, as a perpetrator would not readily agree to such a meeting. The medical evidence only confirmed injury but did not link the appellant to the crime. The court held that the prosecution failed to prove the identity of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, and the conviction was unsafe. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the conviction and sentence were set aside, and the appellant was acquitted.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Sexual Offences - Identification of Accused - POCSO Act, 2012, Sections 5(m), 6; IPC, 1860, Section 376(2)(i) - The appellant was convicted for penetrative sexual assault on a 5-year-old victim. The prosecution's case relied on identification of the accused by the victim in the presence of her mother and father, but the father was not examined and the mother's evidence was insufficient to prove her presence during identification. The court held that the failure to conduct a test identification parade and the doubtful circumstances surrounding the identification rendered the conviction unsafe. (Paras 9-12) B) Evidence Law - Child Witness - Corroboration - Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Section 118 - The victim's testimony, though recorded under Section 164 Cr.PC, was not corroborated by independent evidence. The medical evidence only confirmed injury but did not link the accused to the crime. The court held that in the absence of reliable identification, the conviction cannot be sustained. (Paras 10-12) C) Criminal Procedure - Investigation - Test Identification Parade - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Section 161 - The investigating officer did not conduct a test identification parade despite the accused not being previously known to the victim. The court held that this omission was fatal to the prosecution's case. (Paras 7, 9)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellant under Section 5(m) punishable under Section 6 of the POCSO Act and Section 376(2)(i) of the IPC is sustainable in law based on the evidence on record.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. The judgment and order dated 19.05.2022 passed by the learned Extra Joint Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur, convicting the appellant for offences under Section 5(m) punishable under Section 6 of the POCSO Act and under Section 376(2)(i) of the IPC, is set aside. The appellant is acquitted of all charges. His bail bonds stand cancelled.
Law Points
- Identification of accused
- Test identification parade
- Child witness testimony
- Medical evidence corroboration
- Burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt
- Natural conduct of witnesses
