"High Court Acquits Accused in Sexual Assault Case on Grounds of Doubtful Evidence" "Accused Kailas Dawar acquitted due to procedural lapses, inconsistent testimonies, and lack of medical corroboration."


Summary of Judgement

The Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench, set aside the conviction of Appellant, who was earlier sentenced for offenses under Sections 328 and 376(2)(i) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Sections 3 and 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO). The appeal was allowed based on insufficient evidence, questionable witness credibility, and the absence of medical corroboration of the alleged sexual assault.

1. Background of the Case:

The case revolves around the accused Kailas Dawar, who was convicted by the Special Judge for administering pills and committing sexual assault on a minor girl aged 7 at the time of the incident, which allegedly took place in 2018. The girl's mother lodged an FIR, and Dawar was convicted under IPC and POCSO based on the victim’s testimony and other evidence.

2. Testimonies of the Witnesses:

The prosecution’s case relied heavily on the testimonies of the victim and her mother. However, the Court observed inconsistencies in their statements:

  • The victim’s mother delayed taking her daughter for medical examination despite the serious nature of the allegations.
  • The victim’s testimony was not consistent with her earlier statement recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C., which created doubts about the occurrence of the alleged incident.
  • The testimony of a key witness, Bharat (a 14-year-old present at the scene), did not sufficiently corroborate the prosecution's case.

3. Medical Examination:

There were significant delays in conducting the medical examination of the victim. The mother initially refused consent, and the medical check-up was carried out two years after the alleged incident. The medical officer’s testimony did not provide conclusive evidence of sexual assault, as the injuries could have occurred from other causes.

4. Legal Discussion - Age of the Victim:

The prosecution presented a school admission register to establish the age of the victim, confirming that she was 7 years old at the time of the incident, meeting the definition of a child under the POCSO Act.

5. Inconsistent Conduct of the Witnesses:

The Court noted that the actions of the victim’s family and other witnesses during and after the incident were inconsistent and raised doubts about the veracity of their statements. The children who witnessed the incident did not raise any immediate alarm or report the matter to their elders promptly.

6. No Foundational Facts for Presumption under POCSO:

The Court held that the presumption under Section 29 of the POCSO Act, which allows for a presumption of guilt against the accused, is not absolute and must be based on established facts. In this case, the prosecution failed to establish those foundational facts beyond a reasonable doubt.

Acts and Sections Discussed:

  • Indian Penal Code (IPC):

    • Section 328: Administering drugs with intent to cause harm
    • Section 376(2)(i): Rape of a minor
  • Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012:

    • Section 3: Penetrative sexual assault
    • Section 4: Punishment for penetrative sexual assault
    • Section 29: Presumption as to certain offenses
  • Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.):

    • Section 164: Recording of confessions and statements

Ratio Decidendi:

The Court concluded that the prosecution had failed to prove the charges against the accused beyond a reasonable doubt due to:

  1. Lack of credible witness testimony.
  2. Delay in the medical examination, rendering the medical evidence unreliable.
  3. Failure to establish foundational facts to invoke the presumption under Section 29 of the POCSO Act.

Subjects:

#Acquittal #SexualAssault #POCSO #IPC #CriminalAppeal #MedicalEvidence #WitnessCredibility

The Judgement

Case Title: Kailas S/o. Rama Dawar (Jail) Versus State of Maharashtra & Ors.

Citation: 2024 LawText (BOM) (9) 55

Case Number: CRIMINAL APPEAL (APEAL) NO. 47 OF 2022

Date of Decision: 2024-09-05