SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Mohan Ambadas Meshram vs State Of Maharashtra Thr. Police … on 3 July, 2018

1 apeal606.17.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.606/2017

Mohan Ambadas Meshram,
aged 43 years, Occ. Labour,
r/o Ratnapur, Tahsil Sidewahi,
District Chadrapur. …..APPELLANT
…V E R S U S…

State of Maharashtra through
Police Station, Chandrapur. …RESPONDENT
——————————————————————————————-
Mr. Mir Nagman Ali, Advocate for appellant.
Mrs. Geeta Tiwari, A.P.P. for respondent.
——————————————————————————————-
CORAM:- MANISH PITALE, J.
DATED :- JULY 3, 2018

ORAL JUDGMENT

1. The appellant herein has been convicted under Section

376 (2) (i) of Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 6 of Protection

of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act) and he

has been sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 10 years

and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-. The Sessions Court, Chandrapur

(Trial Court) has, by the impugned judgment and order, imposed

aforesaid conviction and sentence on the appellant in Special

(Child) Case No.30/2015.

2. The prosecution case in brief is that on 08.01.2015,

prosecutrix (PW4), victim in the present case, was playing under a

::: Uploaded on – 06/07/2018 08/07/2018 01:21:39 :::
2 apeal606.17.odt

tree near the house of the appellant (accused) which was under

construction. When the friends of the prosecutrix went to answer

call of nature, the appellant lured her into the said house by

offering her Rs.2/-. Friends of the prosecutrix (PW4) returned and

upon hearing the voice, they went to the house and peeped in from

a hole in the wall, where they saw that knicker of the prosecutrix

(PW4) had been removed and the appellant was sleeping on her

body. One of the friends i.e. Sneha (PW5) then went to the house

of Shila Meshram (PW2) and told her about the incident

whereupon Shila (PW2) went near the house of the appellant and

she saw through a hole in the wall that the appellant was

committing sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix (PW4).

3. The said Shila (PW2) then took the prosecutrix (PW4) to

her mother i.e. the first informant; Diksha Meshram (PW1) and

told her about the incident. It was the case of the prosecution that

since father of the prosecutrix was not at home, report pertaining

to the said incident was not immediately lodged by the mother

Diksha (PW1) and that the oral report was submitted on the next

day i.e. on 09.01.2015 at Police Station, Sindewahi, which is the

reason for late registration of the offence against the appellant.

::: Uploaded on – 06/07/2018 08/07/2018 01:21:39 :::

3 apeal606.17.odt

4. After registration of the offence, the prosecutrix (PW4)

was sent for medical examination and she was examined by

Dr.Jaya Bhongle (PW9). Clothes of the prosecutrix (PW4) were

seized and sent for anlaysis. Police recorded statements of

witnesses and on the basis of the same as also the medical

examination report, the police submitted charge-sheet and the

appellant was made to face the trial.

5. In support of its case, the prosecution examined 10

witnesses, out of whom the material witnesses were Diksha (PW1)

i.e. informant and mother of the prosecutrix, Shila Meshram

(PW2), neighbour and eye witness to the incident, Narendra

Gahane (PW3), Police Patil of village, prosecutrix herself (PW4),

Sneha Meshram (PW5), friend of the prosecutrix who was also eye

witness, Dr. Jaya Bhongle (PW9) and API Bansu Kodape (PW10)

the investigating officer.

6. On the basis of the oral and documentary evidence on

record, the trial Court found that the prosecution had been able to

prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against the appellant and

accordingly, the trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellant

::: Uploaded on – 06/07/2018 08/07/2018 01:21:39 :::
4 apeal606.17.odt

by the impugned judgment and order. The present appeal has

been filed challenging the same.

7. Mr. M. N. Ali, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

appellant, submitted that conviction and sentence imposed against

the appellant by the trial Court was unsustainable because there

was lack of evidence to prove the prosecution case. It was pointed

out that there were material omissions and contradictions in the

evidence of the prosecution witnesses, particularly the two alleged

eye witnesses; Shila (PW2) and Sneha (PW5). It was further

contended that the evidence of informant Diksha (PW1), when

compared with the evidence of the aforesaid alleged eye witnesses,

demonstrate material contradictions. It was further contended that

the evidence of the prosecutrix shows that she was a tutored child

witness and that the entire prosecution case was based on such

tutored version given by the prosecutrix, who was only 6 years old.

It was further contended that medical evidence on record also does

not support the prosecution case as there was no injury found on

the genitals or body of the prosecutrix and that the cross-

examination of API Kodape (PW10), the investigating officer,

demonstrated that the material omissions in the evidence of the

other prosecution witnesses stood proved. It was also pointed out

::: Uploaded on – 06/07/2018 08/07/2018 01:21:39 :::
5 apeal606.17.odt

that the evidence of Sneha (PW5) was rendered unbelievable

because of admission made in the cross-examination that before

deposing in the Court, police had read over her statement to her.

On this basis, it was contended that the impugned judgment and

order deserves to be set aside. The learned counsel placed reliance

on the judgment of Division Bench of this Court in the case of

Suresh s/o Purushottam Ashtankar Vs. State of Maharashtra

and anr.; reported in 2015 (3) Mh.L.J. (Cri) 424 and judgment of

the learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Rustam s/o

Ukarda Jadhav Vs. State of Maharashtra; reported in 2016 ALL

MR (Cri) 248.

8. Per contra, Mrs. Geeta Tiwari, learned A.P.P. appearing

on behalf of the State, submitted that the omissions and

contradictions, if any, in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses

were minor in nature and perusal of the evidence demonstrates

that there was ring of truth in the prosecution case and that the

impugned judgment and order deserves to be confirmed. It was

submitted that when there were eye witnesses to the incident and

the appellant had not denied presence of the prosecutrix in his

house, there was no reason why the prosecution case could be

disbelieved. It was further submitted that, suggestion of enmity

::: Uploaded on – 06/07/2018 08/07/2018 01:21:39 :::
6 apeal606.17.odt

between Shila (PW2) with the appellant regarding property dispute

as the basis for false implication, was not supported by any

material on record. It was further submitted that, in any case, the

informant Diksha (PW1), mother of the prosecutrix, did not have

any enmity with the appellant, who was her own brother-in-law

and that it was beyond belief that a mother would allow her six

years old daughter to be used for false implication. On this basis,

the learned A.P.P submitted that the appeal deserves to be

dismissed. Reliance was placed on judgment of the Hon’ble

Supreme Court in Rammi alias Rameshwar Vs. State of M.P.;

reported in (1999) 8 SCC 649.

9. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Before

examining the evidence on record, it would be appropriate to

analyse the basis of conviction and sentence imposed by the trial

Court in the impugned judgment and order. Perusal of the

impugned judgment and order passed by the trial Court shows that

emphasis has been placed on the evidence of the two eye witnesses

to the incident i.e. Shila (PW1) and Sneha (PW5). The trial Court

has found that the evidence of these two eye witnesses was wholly

believable. In fact, as regards the evidence of Sneha (PW5), the

trial Court has gone to the extent of saying that her sole testimony

::: Uploaded on – 06/07/2018 08/07/2018 01:21:39 :::
7 apeal606.17.odt

was enough to bring home the guilt of the accused. It has been

found by the trial Court that these two witnesses had corroborated

the evidence of each other, which unmistakably pointed towards

guilt of the appellant. Apart from this, the trial Court has

examined the evidence of prosecutrix (PW4) and upon noticing

certain contradictions, the trial Court has held that this was

perhaps because of the tender age of the prosecutrix (PW4). It is

opined that the sole testimony of the prosecutrix could not be

sufficient to hold the appellant guilty but the evidence of Shila

(PW2), Sneha (PW5) and that of Diksha (PW1), was sufficient to

prove the prosecution case.

10. The trial Court has referred to the medical evidence

on record and it is found that the same supported the prosecution

case. It is found by the trial Court that hymen was found to be

torn, although there were no injuries on the genitals and the body

of the prosecutrix. As regards absence of swelling on the genitals,

the trial Court has found that the medical examination of the

prosecutrix (PW4) was conducted beyond 48 hours and that,

therefore, absence of swelling or injury on the genitals of the

prosecutrix (PW4) could not be said to be fatal to the prosecution

case. In this context, as regards delay in registration of FIR, the

::: Uploaded on – 06/07/2018 08/07/2018 01:21:40 :::
8 apeal606.17.odt

trial Court has not found it to be adverse to the prosecution case.

The trial Court has also referred to presumption that operates

against the appellant under Section 29 of the POCSO Act and it has

been found that the appellant has failed to discharge the burden of

proving the contrary once the presumption operated against him.

These are the factors taken into consideration and relied upon by

the trial Court while convicting and sentencing the appellant in the

aforesaid manner.

11. In this backdrop, it becomes necessary to examine

the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. Diksha (PW1) was the

informant and mother of the prosecutrix. Her evidence, as regards

the manner in which the incident took place, is necessarily hearsay

in nature. This is because she acquired knowledge about details of

the incident on the basis of what was narrated to her by the

prosecutrix (PW4) and Shila (PW2). Therefore, to that extent, her

evidence would not be of much avail to the prosecution. The only

relevant portion of the evidence of this witness is her explanation

regarding delay in approaching the police for lodging the report

regarding the incident. It has come on record that while the

incident allegedly took place at about 12.00 noon on 08.01.2015,

the oral report leading to registration of FIR was lodged by Diksha

::: Uploaded on – 06/07/2018 08/07/2018 01:21:40 :::
9 apeal606.17.odt

(PW1) at about 8.00 p.m. on 09.01.2015. Ostensible reason given

by Diksha (PW1) for such a delay was that her husband (father of

the prosecutrix) was not available but it is relevant that when the

report was actually lodged with the police on 09.01.2015, only

Diksha (PW1) and Shila (PW2) went with the prosecutrix (PW4) to

the police station. Therefore, explanation for delay in approaching

the police does not appear to be convincing.

12. The evidence of Shila (PW2) who claims to be an

eye witness to the incident shows that when Sneha (PW5) told her

about the appellant committing the act of sexual intercourse with

the prosecutrix, she reached the place of the incident, which was

an under-construction house of the appellant. This witness claims

to have seen the incident from a hole in the wall. A perusal of the

the photos of the house placed on record show that the house was

under- construction and windows and door were open and

incomplete. The hole in the wall, from which this witness claimed

to have seen the incident, is below the window and just above the

height of the said witness. It is also claimed by the said witness i.e.

Shila (PW2) that there were other children also present at the

place when the incident took place and that she took the

prosecutrix after the incident to her house where another child

::: Uploaded on – 06/07/2018 08/07/2018 01:21:40 :::
10 apeal606.17.odt

namely; Prajakta Meshram called mother of the prosecutrix i.e.

Diksha (PW1) to the house of Shila (PW2) where the victim had

not told anything as she was crying. This is contradictory to the

statement of Diksha (PW1) that the prosecutrix (PW4) came along

with Shila (PW2) and told her about the incident. It is stated in

the evidence of Shila (PW2) that she had tried to encroach on the

land belonging to the appellant. This is significant in the context of

suggestion given by the evidence that there was dispute pertaining

to property between the appellant and Shila (PW2), leading to

false implication. It has further come in the evidence of Shila

(PW2) that at the time of the incident, Police Patil of the village;

Narendra (PW3) and another person were measuring paddy crops

nearby. It is further admitted by this witness that the said Police

Patil Narendra (PW3) was at a shouting distance from her when

the incident took place but she claimed that as she had panicked,

she failed to inform the Police Patil about the said incident. In the

cross-examination of this witness, it has come on record that there

were omissions noticed in her statement given to police pertaining

to Sneha (PW5) informing her about the appellant committing

sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix, that she asked the

prosecutrix to remove her knicker but the prosecutrix refused to do

so and that she had asked the other child Prajakta to call Diksha

::: Uploaded on – 06/07/2018 08/07/2018 01:21:40 :::
11 apeal606.17.odt

(PW1) to her house where the incident was narrated to Diksha

(PW1). These omissions were put to the investigating officer and

they stood proved. Evidence of this witness, therefore, shows that

there were improvements made in her evidence before the Court

and that there were material contradictions between the evidence

of this witness as compared to that of Diksha (PW1).

13. The prosecution examined Police Patil Narendra

(PW3). The evidence of this witness shows that he was, indeed,

present near the spot of the incident and that Shila (PW2) did not

inform him anything about the said incident.

14. The evidence of prosecutrix (PW4) was crucial for

the prosecution case. A perusal of her evidence shows that she has

admitted in the cross-examination that she was told how she was

to give her statement in the Court and that whatever she deposed

in the Court was as per the directions of her mother Diksha (PW1)

and Shila (PW2). Although, this witness has stated in her

examination-in-chief in support of the prosecution case regarding

the manner in which the incident took place, she has not

specifically stated about the appellant having committed sexual

intercourse with her and she has simply stated that he slept on her

::: Uploaded on – 06/07/2018 08/07/2018 01:21:40 :::
12 apeal606.17.odt

body. Apart from this, in cross-examination, the prosecutrix (PW4)

has stated that she along with her friend went inside the house of

the appellant where he was resting on sand. She has stated that

she has played for some time and, thereafter, upon hearing voice of

her friends, she came out of house. This is in complete

contradiction to the prosecution case regarding sexual assault by

the appellant on the prosecutrix when she entered the house. The

admissions given in the cross-examination demonstrate that this

witness, who was only about 6 years of age, was tutored to make

statement in the Court.

15. Sneha (PW5) was friend of the prosecutrix who

claimed to be an eye witness to the incident. She claimed to have

seen the incident from a hole in the wall of the under-construction

house from which Shila (PW2) had also seen the incident. It has

been already noted above that the hole in the wall was just above

the height of Shila (PW2). Sneha (PW5), in her cross-examination,

has admitted that her height was about 3.5 Ft. This clearly

demonstrates that the claim of the prosecution that Sneha (PW5)

saw the incident from the hole in the wall, is wholly unbelievable.

Apart from this, in cross-examination, this witness had admitted

that she was accompanied by her father at the time of her

::: Uploaded on – 06/07/2018 08/07/2018 01:21:40 :::
13 apeal606.17.odt

deposition and that police had read over her statement to her

before giving the evidence. This admission on the part of the said

witness discredits her evidence before the Court. She was a 10

years old child deposing before the Court and statements made in

the cross-examination do show that she could not be said to be an

eye witness to the incident.

16. Dr. Jaya (PW9) is the doctor who had medically

examined the prosecutrix on 10.01.2015 at about 1.50 p.m. i.e.

about 48 hours after the alleged incident. Perusal of the medical

examination report (Exh.-46) and the answers to the queries given

by Dr. Jaya (PW9), show that although there was tear of hymen,

there were no injury marks seen over the body or genitals of the

prosecutrix. The said witness has stated that there was no swelling

found on the genitals of the prosecutrix, but she opined that such

swelling could have been observed if sexual intercourse occurred

within 24 hours. It was also stated by the said witness that she had

not seen any stains of sand, mud or semen on the clothes of the

prosecutrix and further that there may be several reasons for a tear

in the hymen. Thus, the medical evidence did not show any sign of

injury on the genitals of the prosecutrix or on her body.

::: Uploaded on – 06/07/2018 08/07/2018 01:21:40 :::

14 apeal606.17.odt

17. The investigating officer API Kodape (PW10) has

deposed about the manner in which he carried out the

investigation. In the cross-examination, he has made statement

that proved the omissions in the evidence of the prosecution

witnesses. It is also stated by the said witness that it was not true

that Shila (PW2) had come along with the prosecutrix and the

informant Diksha (PW1), while lodging the report. This also

contradicted the claims made by Diksha (PW1), Shila (PW2) and

the prosecutrix (PW4).

18. The aforesaid analysis and perusal of the evidence

of the material prosecution witnesses, shows that the prosecution

has not been able to place on record convincing evidence to prove

its case beyond reasonable doubt against the appellant. The

evidence of Shila (PW2) and Sneha (PW5), the alleged eye

witnesses, shows that there are not only omissions but material

contradictions in the manner in which they have described the very

same incident. The evidence of Diksha (PW1) informant, also

shows some variance in her statement, as compared with that of

Shila (PW2). The delay in lodging report before the police has also

not been satisfactorily explained in the present case. The

ostensible reason given was that the husband of Diksha (PW1) i.e.

::: Uploaded on – 06/07/2018 08/07/2018 01:21:40 :::
15 apeal606.17.odt

father of the prosecutrix, was not at home due to which the report

could not be made. But record shows that even when the report

was eventually lodged on 09.01.2015 at about 8.00 p.m. it was

only Diksha (PW1) who approached to the police along with the

prosecutrix. This is also a factor which goes against prosecution.

19. Apart from this, evidence of prosecutrix (PW4) itself

renders prosecution unreliable. The cross-examination of the said

witness shows that she is a tutored witness because she has

conceded to the fact that she had deposed in the Court as per the

directions of her mother Diksha (PW1) and Shila (PW2). She has

also given a version regarding what had happened on the date of

the incident, which was completely contradictory to the

prosecution case and what she herself had stated in her

examination-in-chief. In this situation, it would not be safe to rely

upon the evidence of the said child witness-prosecutrix. In this

context, the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in

Radhey Shyam Vs. State of Rajasthan; reported in (2014) 5 SCC

389, becomes relevant, which reads as follows:

“12. In Panchhi, (1998 SCC (Cri) 1561) after reiterating
the same principles, this Court observed that the evidence
of a child witness must be evaluated more carefully and
with greater circumspection because a child is susceptible

::: Uploaded on – 06/07/2018 08/07/2018 01:21:40 :::
16 apeal606.17.odt

to be swayed by what others tell him and, thus, a child
witness is an easy pray to tutoring. This Court further
observed that the courts have held that the evidence of a
child witness must find adequate corroboration before it
is relied upon. But, it is more a rule of practical wisdom
than of law. It is not necessary to refer to other
judgments cited by learned counsel because they reiterate
the same principles. The conclusion which can be deduced
from the relevant pronouncements of this Court is that
the evidence of a child witness must be subjected to close
scrutiny to rule out the possibility of tutoring. It can be
relied upon if the court finds that the child witness has
sufficient intelligence and understanding of the obligation
of an oath. As a matter of caution, the court must find
adequate corroboration to the child witness’s evidence. If
found, reliable and truthful and corroborated by other
evidence on record, it can be accepted without hesitation.
We will scrutinize PW-2 Banwari’s evidence in light of
the above principles.”

20. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has also held in the

case of Lallu Manjhi and another Vs. State of Jharkhand;

reported in (2003) 2 SCC 401, that witness could be categorised in

three categories namely; (i) wholly reliable, (ii) wholly unreliable,

and (iii) neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable. In case of

the third category, Hon’ble Supreme Court has laid down that,

::: Uploaded on – 06/07/2018 08/07/2018 01:21:40 :::
17 apeal606.17.odt

corroboration of evidence of such witness is extremely necessary.

In the present case, at the most, the prosecution witnesses,

particularly prosecutrix (PW4) herself, fall in the category of the

witness that was neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable. In

this situation, corroboration of her evidence becomes crucial for

proving the prosecution case. In the present case, there is lack of

evidence to corroborate the claim made by the prosecutrix (PW4)

and Shila (PW2) as well as Sneha (PW5) who claimed to be the

eye witnesses to the said incident. The evidence of Sneha (PW5) is

rendered unreliable due to crucial admission made in her cross-

examination that police had read over her statement to her before

deposing in the Court. The law in this regard, as laid down by a

series of judgments, shows that if a witness is permitted to

stealthily refresh his or her memory before entering the Court and

deposing then the evidence of such a witness is rendered

unreliable. This dictum has been laid down as far back as in the

ahiruddin Vs.
judgment of the Privy Council reported in Z

Emperor; reported in AIR 1947 PC 75 and in one of the recent

judgments of Division Bench of this Court in the case of Suresh

s/o Purushottam Ashtankar, supra. In the said case, while

approving the view taken by a learned Single Judge of this Court,

the Division bench has held as under:

::: Uploaded on – 06/07/2018 08/07/2018 01:21:40 :::

18 apeal606.17.odt

“32. In para 10 of the said reported Judgment, the
learned Single Judge found that Pundlik (PW-1) has
admitted that the police had read over his statement to
him and also told him to tender the evidence as per his
statement. The learned Single Judge has observed thus:
“There would indeed be nothing wrong in the witness
refreshing his memory, but that ought to be done
before the Court and not outside the Court. In order to
test the veracity of a witness, he would be required to
recollect the incident out of his own memory and
should he falter on some material aspect, he could be
allowed to refresh his memory with reference to the
contemporaneous records of the incident created by
the police. It would not be permissible for such witness
to stealthily refresh his memory before entering the
Court and deposing about the entire evidence giving
minute details as if he was reeling them out from his
memory. Therefore, the objection to the reliability of
evidence of PW-2 Prabhakar taken by learned Counsel
for the appellant is valid”.

(emphasis is supplied by us.)
We approve the dictum of the learned Single
Judge in that behalf.”

21. Applying the said position of law to the present

case, it becomes evident that testimony of Sneha (PW5) is rendered

unreliable. Yet, the trial Court has erroneously held in the

::: Uploaded on – 06/07/2018 08/07/2018 01:21:40 :::
19 apeal606.17.odt

impugned judgment and order that the evidence of Sneha (PW5)

would itself be sufficient to bring home the guilt of the appellant.

Therefore, it is only the evidence of the remaining alleged eye

witness Shila (PW2) that could support the prosecution case. But,

as noted above, there are material omissions in her testimony, duly

proved in the cross-examination of the investigating officer

(PW10), and there are material contradictions rendering her

evidence unreliable. These contradictions could not be said to be

mere variations in the narration of the incident. Therefore, the

learned A.P.P. was not justified in relying upon judgment of the

Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rammi alias Rameshwar

Vs. State of M.P., (supra).

22. In the face of such nature of evidence of prosecution

witnesses, it becomes difficult to accept that the prosecution could

prove foundational facts of its case beyond reasonable doubt. The

absence of proof of such foundational facts would have the result

of presumption under Section 29 of the POCSO Act, not being

triggered at all in the facts of the present case. Although, Section

29 of the POCSO Act raises a presumption and the accused is

required to prove contrary, but no presumption can be absolute.

The presumption would arise only upon the prosecution first

::: Uploaded on – 06/07/2018 08/07/2018 01:21:40 :::
20 apeal606.17.odt

proving the basic foundational facts of its case before the Court

beyond reasonable doubts. Any other interpretation would do

violence to the fundamental principle enshrined in Article 21 of the

Constitution of India that no person should be deprived of his

liberty without procedure established by law.

23. In any case, the nature of presumption in Section 29

of the POCSO Act would be rebuttable on the touchstone of

preponderance of probabilities. A presumption can be rebutted by

defence either by leading defence evidence or by discrediting the

evidence of the witnesses produced by the prosecution. In the

present case, perusal of cross-examination of the prosecution

witnesses shows that all the material witnesses; Diksha (PW1)

informant, Shila (PW2), prosecutrix (PW4) and Sneha (PW5)

stands discredited. The prosecution case is not made out and in

that backdrop, suggestion of false implication of the appellant due

to property dispute with Shila (PW2) assumes significance. In her

cross-examination, Shila (PW2) has conceded to the fact that she

had indeed tried to encroach upon the land of the appellant.

Learned A.P.P. forcefully argued that there was nothing to show

that there was enmity between Diksha (PW1) informant-mother of

the prosecutrix and the appellant who was her brother-in-law. On

::: Uploaded on – 06/07/2018 08/07/2018 01:21:40 :::
21 apeal606.17.odt

this basis, it was submitted that suggestion of false implication

deserved to be discarded. But evidence of Diksha (PW1) informant

itself shows that she believed about the manner in which the

incident took place on the basis of what was told to her by Shila

(PW2). It is possible for the mother of the prosecutrix to have

believed what was told to her and that she acted on said narration

of the incident made by Shila (PW2). Therefore, the said

submission made on behalf of the State cannot be accepted.

24. A perusal of the impugned judgment and order

shows that the trial Court has been perhaps moved by seriousness

and heinous nature of the allegations made against the appellant as

he was alleged to have committed sexual intercourse with his own

niece, who was a child of tender age of six years. There is no

doubt that the allegation made against the appellant was of serious

nature but the Court is not supposed to analyse the evidence only

in the backdrop of seriousness of allegations in its mind. The

evidence needs to be convincing and if it does not prove case of the

prosecution against the accused beyond reasonable doubt, the

benefit has to go to the accused. In the present case, the evidence

of prosecution witnesses has fallen way short of proving the

prosecution case beyond reasonable doubt. The medical evidence

::: Uploaded on – 06/07/2018 08/07/2018 01:21:40 :::
22 apeal606.17.odt

does not support the case of the prosecution at all. There was no

injury found on the body and genitals of the prosecutrix despite the

fact that the allegation of the prosecution was that the appellant,

who was a fully grown man, had sexual intercourse with the

prosecutrix, who was a child of mere six years of age. A perusal of

the entire evidence and material on record shows that the

prosecution case was not proved against the appellant beyond

reasonable doubt and that, therefore, he could not have been

convicted and sentenced under the provisions of the Indian Penal

Code and the POCSO Act.

25. In the light of the above, the instant appeal is

allowed. The impugned judgment and order is set side and the

appellant is acquitted of the offence with which he was charged.

The appellant shall be released from custody, if not required in any

other case.

(Manish Pitale, J.)

kahale

::: Uploaded on – 06/07/2018 08/07/2018 01:21:40 :::

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


Not found ...? HOW TO WIN 498a, DV, DIVORCE; Search in Above link

All Law documents and Judgment copies
Laws and Bare Acts of India
Landmark SC/HC Judgements
Rules and Regulations of India.

STUDY REPORTS

Copyright © 2021 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation