Case Note & Summary
This criminal appeal arose from the judgment of conviction and order on sentence passed by the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kolar in Special S.C. No. 11/2019. The accused was convicted for offences punishable under Section 363 and Section 376(2)(n) of the Indian Penal Code, Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, and Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The trial court sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment of seven years for kidnapping, ten years for statutory rape, and life imprisonment for the caste-based offence, along with fines and compensation under Section 357(A) CrPC. The appellant, aggrieved by the conviction, filed the present appeal under Section 374(2) CrPC. The prosecution case was that the accused, while deputed for law and order duty in Gandhinagar, Kolar, developed acquaintance with the victim girl. On 08.05.2019, he called the victim to Court Circle, Kolar, and took her to Bengaluru and then to Thoranagal in Bellary District. On 09.05.2019, at the house of CW-9 Ramaswamy, the accused allegedly had sexual intercourse with the victim, knowing she was a minor. The victim's father lodged a missing person complaint, after which the accused and victim were traced together. The victim's statement was recorded under Section 161 CrPC, she was medically examined, and later her statement under Section 164(5) CrPC was recorded before a magistrate. The investigating officer visited the place of occurrence, prepared a mahazar, collected a caste verification certificate from the Executive Magistrate, and filed a charge sheet. The accused was arrested on 22.05.2019 and later enlarged on bail on 04.03.2020. During trial, the prosecution examined 19 witnesses, marked 33 documents and 16 material objects. The accused denied all incriminating evidence in his statement under Section 313 CrPC and did not lead defence evidence. The High Court framed four points for consideration: whether the victim was a child under Section 2(d) POCSO Act; whether the accused committed the offences under Section 376(2)(n) read with Section 6 POCSO Act and Section 363 IPC; and whether the offence under Section 3(2)(v) SC/ST (POA) Act was proved. The appellant's counsel argued that the trial court erred in appreciating the age evidence, that there was inordinate delay in lodging the complaint, that enmity existed between the families, that the victim's Section 164 CrPC statement did not mention rape, that no injuries were found on the victim's private parts, and that the prosecution failed to prove caste-based motive. The respondent-State and amicus curiae supported the trial court's judgment. The court, after considering the arguments, answered all four points in the negative. It held that the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the victim was a child as defined under Section 2(d) POCSO Act, that the offences under Section 376(2)(n) read with Section 6 POCSO Act and Section 363 IPC were committed, and that the offence under Section 3(2)(v) SC/ST (POA) Act was committed. Relying on the presumptions under Sections 29 and 30 POCSO Act, the court observed that these protections do not relax the standard of proof or allow substituting sympathy for evidence; the presumption of innocence remains a human right. As a result, the appeal was allowed and the conviction and sentence were set aside, acquitting the accused of all charges.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Kidnapping - Section 363 Indian Penal Code, 1860 - The offence of kidnapping requires proof of enticing or taking away a minor without consent of lawful guardian - Prosecution failed to prove minority of victim beyond reasonable doubt due to contradictory age evidence and lack of conclusive medical opinion - Held that conviction under Section 363 IPC cannot be sustained (Paras 7-8, 9-10). B) Criminal Law - Rape and Statutory Rape - Section 376(2)(n) Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 6 POCSO Act, 2012 - The prosecution must prove sexual intercourse with a child below 18 years and absence of consent or force - Evidence of victim's statement under Section 164 CrPC lacked mention of rape, and medical evidence showed no injuries; age proof not conclusive - Held that offences under Section 376(2)(n) IPC read with Section 6 POCSO Act not proved beyond reasonable doubt (Paras 7-8, 9-10). C) SC/ST Atrocities - Caste-Based Offences - Section 3(2)(v) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 - Conviction requires proof that rape was committed on ground of victim's Scheduled Caste status - No evidence of caste-based motivation; prosecution failed to establish essential ingredient - Held that conviction under Section 3(2)(v) SC/ST (POA) Act unsustainable (Paras 7-8, 9-10). D) Evidence - Standard of Proof - Sections 29 and 30 POCSO Act, 2012 - Statutory presumptions cannot lower standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt - The presumption of innocence remains; court cannot substitute sympathy for evidence - Held that even in sensitive cases, prosecution must prove all ingredients with credible evidence; doubts benefit accused (Paras 9-10).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the victim was a child as defined under Section 2(d) of POCSO Act; whether the accused committed offences punishable under Section 376(2)(n) read with Section 6 of POCSO Act; whether the accused committed offence punishable under Section 363 IPC; whether the accused committed offence punishable under Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (POA) Act.
Final Decision
The High Court answered Points No.1 to 4 in the negative, holding that the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt the victim's minority under Section 2(d) POCSO Act, the offences under Section 376(2)(n) read with Section 6 POCSO Act, Section 363 IPC, and Section 3(2)(v) SC/ST (POA) Act. Consequently, the appeal was allowed and the conviction and sentence were set aside, acquitting the accused.
Law Points
- Presumption of innocence is a human right
- Statutory presumptions under POCSO do not relax standard of proof
- Prosecution must prove victim's minority beyond reasonable doubt
- Sole testimony of credible victim requires no corroboration
- Contradictions and enmity among witnesses create reasonable doubt
- Conviction under SC/ST Act requires caste-based motive
