Case Note & Summary
The case involves an appeal against the conviction of two appellants, Rahul Rajabhau Pistulkar and Aditya @ Shubham Yevale, under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act). The appellants were convicted by the Special Judge, Wardha, on 11.08.2022, for offences under Section 3(b) punishable under Section 4(2) and Section 5(m) punishable under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, and sentenced to 20 years of rigorous imprisonment each. The prosecution alleged that on 22.04.2019, the appellants took a 4-year-old victim boy behind a temple, removed his knickers, and inserted a stone into his anus. The incident was reported on 27.04.2019 after a delay of five days. The victim's mother (informant) stated that the victim disclosed the incident on 23.04.2019, but she waited for her husband's return from Chandrapur before lodging the FIR. The prosecution examined 10 witnesses, including the victim, his mother, and a neighbour who claimed the victim identified the appellants. The medical examination of the victim on 27.04.2019 revealed no injuries to the anus or body. The defence argued false implication due to a grudge in the locality. The High Court found that the identification of the appellants was unreliable, as no test identification parade was conducted, and the witnesses' in-court identification was inconsistent. The delay in lodging the FIR was not properly explained, and the medical evidence did not corroborate the alleged insertion of a stone. The court noted that the stone was not produced, and there was no explanation of how it was removed. The court held that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt beyond reasonable doubt and allowed the appeal, setting aside the conviction and acquitting the appellants.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Identification of Accused - Test Identification Parade - Delay in FIR - The prosecution failed to conduct a test identification parade, and the identification of the appellants by witnesses in court was inconsistent and unreliable. The delay of five days in lodging the FIR was not satisfactorily explained, casting doubt on the prosecution's case. (Paras 7, 9, 10) B) Criminal Law - Medical Evidence - Corroboration - Absence of Injuries - In a case of alleged insertion of a stone into the anus of a 4-year-old victim, the medical evidence showed no injuries to the anus or body. The absence of corroborative medical evidence, coupled with the failure to produce the stone or explain its removal, rendered the prosecution's case doubtful. (Paras 8, 10) C) Criminal Law - POCSO Act - Aggravated Penetrative Sexual Assault - Sections 3(b), 4(2), 5(m), 6 - The conviction under these sections was set aside as the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the appellants beyond reasonable doubt due to lack of credible evidence and inconsistencies in the testimonies. (Paras 1, 11)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellants under Sections 3(b) punishable under Section 4(2) and Section 5(m) punishable under Section 6 of the POCSO Act is sustainable in law based on the evidence on record.
Final Decision
The appeal is allowed. The judgment and order dated 11.08.2022 passed by the Special Judge, Wardha, convicting the appellants is set aside. The appellants are acquitted of all charges. Their bail bonds stand cancelled. They are directed to be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other case.
Law Points
- Identification of accused
- Delay in lodging FIR
- Medical evidence corroboration
- Test identification parade
- POCSO Act Sections 3(b)
- 4(2)
- 5(m)
- 6
