Acquittal in a Sensitive POCSO Case: Evidence and Procedure Questioned. Presumption under POCSO rebutted due to foundational gaps in evidence.

Sub Category: Bombay High Court
  • 3
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

1. Background:

The appellant, Sikandar Somsingh Chavhan, was convicted for rape under Section 376(2)(l) IPC and Sections 3, 4, 5(k), and 6 of the POCSO Act. The alleged victim, a minor deaf and mute girl, claimed to have been sexually assaulted during a village function in April 2018. The appellant was sentenced to ten years imprisonment but challenged the conviction.

2. Main Points Discussed:

A. Evidence on Victim’s Age

Birth records and school admission registers placed the victim's age below 18 years. However, inconsistencies in records raised doubts about the reliability of this evidence.

B. Delayed Reporting

The incident occurred on April 18, 2018, but was reported on April 21, 2018. Delay, though explainable in sensitive cases, was compounded by procedural lapses.

C. Lack of Medical Corroboration

Medical examination showed no signs of recent sexual assault or physical injuries. The absence of injuries on both the victim and accused undermined the prosecution’s case.

D. Procedural Lapses

The victim’s statement was not recorded under Section 164 CrPC. Initial statements were delayed and relied on parental interpretation, raising concerns of possible tutoring.

E. Presumption Under Section 29 of POCSO Act

The court clarified that the presumption of guilt requires solid foundational facts, which were not established. 3. Final Decision and Ratio: The court noted inconsistencies, lack of direct or circumstantial evidence, and procedural deficiencies, leading to the conclusion that the prosecution had failed to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The statutory presumption under Section 29 of POCSO could not apply without foundational evidence. The appellant was acquitted and released. Relevant Acts and Sections Discussed

Indian Penal Code (IPC):

Section 376(2)(l): Punishment for rape in specific circumstances.

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

Section 3, 4, 5(k), and 6: Pertains to penetrative sexual assault and aggravated cases involving minors. Section 29: Presumption of guilt, rebuttable upon reasonable doubt. Subjects:

POCSO Acquittal, Evidence Gaps, Procedural Lapses, Presumption of Guilt, Sexual Assault, Indian Penal Code, Delay in FIR Filing.

Issue of Consideration: Sikandar Somsingh Chavhan Versus State of Maharashtra & Ors.

2024 LawText (BOM) (11) 262

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 584 OF 20 22

2024-11-26

G. A. SANAP, J.

Mr. S. D. Chande, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Ganesh Umale, A.P.P. for the respondent no.1/State Ms. Neerja G. Choubey, Advocate appointed for respondent no.2

Sikandar Somsingh Chavhan

State of Maharashtra & Ors.

Related Judgement
High Court Acquittal in a Sensitive POCSO Case: Evidence and Procedure Questioned. Presump...
Related Judgement
High Court Acquittal Upheld in Dowry Harassment Case. Lack of cogent evidence and delayed r...