The Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench, acquitted Rahul Rajabhau Pistulkar and Aditya @ Shubham Yevale, convicted under Sections 3(b), 4(2), 5(m), and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012. They were previously sentenced to 20 years of rigorous imprisonment by a Special Judge for allegedly inserting a stone into the anus of a 4-year-old boy. The acquittal was due to the prosecution's failure to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt, citing inconsistencies in witness testimonies, delayed lodging of the FIR, absence of medical evidence supporting the claims, and improper identification of the accused.

1. Conviction by the Special Judge:

• On 11.08.2022, a Special Judge in Wardha sentenced the appellants to 20 years in prison for violating Sections 3(b), 4(2), 5(m), and 6 of the POCSO Act.

2. Alleged Incident:

• The victim, a 4-year-old boy, allegedly narrated an incident where the accused took him behind a temple, inserted a stone in his anus, poured water, and offered him chocolates.
• The victim disclosed the incident to his mother, who later involved other local boys, leading to the suspects being apprehended.

3. Delay in Lodging the FIR:

• The incident allegedly took place on 22.04.2019, but the First Information Report (FIR) was only lodged on 27.04.2019. The court found the delay significant as it wasn't properly explained, which cast doubt on the case.

4. Medical Evidence:

• Medical examinations showed no injuries to the victim's anus, contradicting the victim’s claims. No medical expert was called to testify, and the doctor's certificate did not support the prosecution's case.

5. Testimony of the Child Victim and Witnesses:

• The court noted inconsistencies in the testimonies. The victim's identification of the accused was found to be unreliable as no identification parade was conducted, and there were major discrepancies in witness accounts.

6. Defense's Argument:

• The defense argued that the appellants were falsely implicated due to neighborhood animosity. This defense was supported by the inconsistencies in the prosecution’s evidence.

Acts and Sections Discussed:

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012:

• Section 3(b): Refers to the offense of penetrative sexual assault.
• Section 4(2): Punishment for aggravated penetrative sexual assault.
• Section 5(m): Aggravated penetrative sexual assault committed on a child under 12 years.
• Section 6: Punishment for aggravated penetrative sexual assault.

Ratio Decidendi:

The court ruled that the foundational facts for applying the presumption under Section 29 of the POCSO Act were not established beyond reasonable doubt. The absence of corroborative medical evidence, unreliable identification, and the delayed FIR led the court to acquit the accused.

Subjects:

Acquittal in a POCSO case based on evidentiary insufficiencies and flawed investigation.

POCSO Act, Acquittal, Sexual Assault, Child Witness, Criminal Law, High Court Judgment.