The appeal challenges the judgment and order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-9, Nagpur, convicting the accused for offences under Section 376(2)(i)(j) of the IPC and Section 5(m) punishable under Section 6 of the POCSO Act. The accused was sentenced to ten years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 25,000/-. The High Court reevaluated the evidence, particularly the medical and DNA reports, and found that the prosecution failed to prove rape but established an attempt to commit rape. Consequently, the court modified the conviction and sentenced the accused to five years of rigorous imprisonment for the attempt to commit rape.

1. Introduction

   • Appeal against the judgment and order dated 19.12.2019 by Additional Sessions Judge-9, Nagpur.

2. Background Facts

   • Incident reported by the victim's mother involving a five-year-old girl.
   • Accused known to the victim's family, incident occurred on 25.07.2015.

3. Investigation and Charges

   • Police investigation led by Mangla Mokashe.
   • DNA evidence linked accused to the crime.

4. Trial and Conviction

   • Prosecution examined eleven witnesses.
   • Trial court found the accused guilty and sentenced him to ten years of rigorous imprisonment.

5. Arguments by the Appellant's Advocate

   • Questioned the credibility of the victim and her mother's evidence.
   • Highlighted inconsistencies and lack of medical evidence supporting penetrative sexual assault.
   • Suggested tampering of DNA samples and argued for an attempt to rape charge instead of rape.

6. Arguments by the Public Prosecutor

   • Asserted the credibility of the victim and her mother's testimony.
   • Emphasized the DNA evidence and the absence of a motive to falsely implicate the accused.

7. Evaluation of DNA Evidence

   • Detailed analysis of the DNA report and chain of custody.
   • Established the presence of the accused's semen on the victim's clothing.

8. Reassessment of the Medical Evidence

   • Medical examination did not reveal injuries consistent with forceful penetration.
   • Considered the evidence of the medical officer regarding the intact hymen.

9. Analysis of Witness Testimonies

   • Examination of inconsistencies and omissions in testimonies.
   • Concluded the evidence supported an attempt to commit rape rather than rape.

10. Legal Precedents and Guidelines

    • Reference to the Supreme Court's stance on DNA evidence and its acceptance.
    • Emphasized the importance of quality control and proper chain of custody for DNA samples.

11. Conclusion on Offense

    • Established that the evidence supports an attempt to commit rape.
    • Modified the conviction from rape to an attempt to commit rape.

12. Sentencing

    • Discussed appropriate sentencing for the attempt to commit rape.
    • Reduced the sentence to five years of rigorous imprisonment considering the circumstances.

13. Final Order

    • Partly allowed the criminal appeal.
    • Modified the conviction and sentence of the accused.

14. Disposition

    • The appeal was disposed of in the terms specified above.