Case Note & Summary
This criminal appeal arose from a conviction for kidnapping and aggravated penetrative sexual assault of a minor girl aged about 2.5 years. The appellant was the neighbour of the victim's family in a jhuggi cluster. The victim's mother lodged a complaint alleging that on the evening of 09.12.2015, the appellant took the child to Hans Raj City Park, and upon return the child complained of sexual abuse and blood was found on her pyjami. FIR No.1085 of 2015 was registered at Kalkaji Police Station under Indian Penal Code and Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act. The trial court convicted the appellant under Section 363 IPC and Section 6 POCSO, sentencing him to rigorous imprisonment for 10 years with fine for POCSO and 1 year with fine for IPC, while acquitting him under Section 506 IPC. The High Court dismissed the appellant's appeal and confirmed the conviction. The prosecution relied on the testimony of the victim's mother (PW-5), uncle (PW-6A), and private doctor Dr. Rajesh Parthasarthy (PW-1), along with medical and forensic evidence. The mother testified that the appellant had taken the child to the park, and after returning home, the child complained of pain and blood was noticed on her pyjami. She stated that she went to the doctor at 9.30 pm with her husband. The doctor, however, stated that the mother came alone with the child at about 4-5 pm. This contradiction regarding time and accompanying persons was considered material by the Supreme Court. The Court also noted that the mother's deposition contained embellishments and improvements over her prior Section 164 CrPC statement. The High Court had placed reliance on Section 29 of POCSO, which raises a statutory presumption of guilt, and held that the burden shifted to the accused to rebut it. However, the Supreme Court observed that the prosecution evidence itself suffered from material inconsistencies, undermining the foundational facts necessary to trigger the presumption. The High Court had also rejected the FSL report on the ground that the pyjami may have been washed, but the Supreme Court found that medical and forensic evidence discrepancies required proper appreciation. The appellant argued that contradictions in ocular and medical evidence did not support the prosecution case, while the respondent contended that the appellant was guilty of a serious offence and discrepancies were minor. The Supreme Court granted leave and analyzed the evidence, ultimately identifying material contradictions. The final operative order is not included in the provided text.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Appreciation of Evidence - Material Contradictions in Child Sexual Assault Case - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 363, 376; Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, Sections 4, 5, 6, 29 - The testimony of the mother (PW-5) that she visited Dr. Rajesh Parthasarthy (PW-1) at 9:30 pm with her husband contradicted PW-1's statement that the victim was brought at 4-5 pm by the mother alone - The Supreme Court observed that this inconsistency could not be brushed aside as minor, particularly read with other attendant evidence - Held that material contradictions in prosecution evidence weakened the case (Paras 5.2-5.2.4). B) Criminal Law - Statutory Presumption in POCSO Cases - Section 29 of POCSO raises presumption of guilt - Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, Section 29 - High Court held that statutory presumption arose once prosecution established foundational facts and burden shifted to accused - Supreme Court analyzed whether prosecution evidence was credible enough to trigger presumption given material contradictions - Held that presumption under Section 29 did not cure material inconsistencies in evidence (Paras 3.4.1, 5.2.3). C) Criminal Law - Kidnapping from Lawful Guardianship - Taking minor from legal guardianship under Section 361 IPC - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 361, 363 - Trial court convicted appellant under Section 363 IPC; High Court confirmed finding that victim was taken away from legal guardianship based on evidence of uncle (PW-6A) and mother - Supreme Court examined contradictions in evidence concerning incident of taking victim to park - Held that evidence of interested witnesses required careful scrutiny before establishing kidnapping (Paras 3.4, 5.2). D) Criminal Law - Medical and Forensic Evidence in POCSO Cases - Discrepancies between medical testimony and FSL report - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 376; Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, Sections 5(m), 6 - High Court disregarded FSL report due to possible washing of pyjami, while Supreme Court noted contradictions between doctor's statement about time and mother's version - Held that inconsistent medical and forensic evidence undermined prosecution case and required proper appreciation (Paras 3.4.1, 5.1-5.2.4).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction under Section 363 IPC and Section 6 POCSO was sustainable in light of material contradictions in the evidence of the mother (PW-5) and private doctor (PW-1); whether the High Court erred in confirming the conviction and applying the statutory presumption under Section 29 POCSO; whether the offence of kidnapping from lawful guardianship was proved beyond reasonable doubt; whether medical and forensic evidence supported the prosecution case.
Law Points
- Appreciation of evidence in child sexual assault cases
- Contradictions in testimony of prosecution witnesses
- Statutory presumption under Section 29 POCSO
- Burden of proof in POCSO cases
- Kidnapping from lawful guardianship under Section 361 IPC
- Aggravated penetrative sexual assault under Section 5(m) POCSO
- Sentencing under Section 6 POCSO and Section 363 IPC
- Reliance on interested witness testimony
- Medical and forensic evidence discrepancies
- FSL report rejection due to washing of pyjami
