The Court based its decision on the sufficiency of the victim’s age-related evidence, consistent testimonies, corroborative medical findings, and the presumption under Section 29 of the POCSO Act. The absence of a convincing rebuttal by the defense led to the dismissal of the appeal.

The Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench, dismissed the appeal, affirming the conviction and 20-year sentence imposed by the Special Judge under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act and relevant sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The Court found that the evidence regarding the victim's age, corroborated by school records and medical testimony, was sufficient to uphold the conviction. The presumption under Section 29 of the POCSO Act was triggered, and the appellant failed to rebut it.

1. Appeal Overview

The appellant, Pravin @ Tushar Janu Chavan, challenged his conviction and 20-year sentence under Section 4 of the POCSO Act and Sections 377 and 506 of the IPC. The Special Judge found him guilty of committing carnal intercourse with a 13-year-old boy and threatening the victim's life.

2. Incident Details

The crime occurred on 2nd September 2020, when the appellant took the victim to a secluded place under the pretext of nature’s call, showed him a pornographic video, and committed sexual assault. The victim disclosed the incident to his uncle, who immediately reported it to the police.

3. Medical and Forensic Evidence

The victim was medically examined soon after the crime, and the doctor found injuries consistent with sexual assault. The forensic reports, including DNA and medical examinations, supported the victim's account. While semen was not found, the evidence of perineal injuries corroborated the claim of carnal intercourse.

4. Age of the Victim

The Court reviewed the evidence regarding the victim's age, including school records showing that he was 13 years old at the time of the offense. The appellant's argument challenging the reliability of the age records was dismissed. The Court emphasized that under Section 2(1)(d) of the POCSO Act, the victim was clearly a minor.

5. Legal Arguments and Defense

The appellant’s defense revolved around claims of false implication due to a familial dispute. He further argued discrepancies in the testimonies regarding the spot of the crime. These defenses were dismissed due to lack of evidence and because the victim’s testimony remained consistent under cross-examination.

6. Credibility of the Victim’s Testimony

The Court affirmed that the victim’s testimony was credible and reliable. The boy, despite his young age, withstood intense cross-examination. His consistent narrative, combined with medical evidence, formed the backbone of the prosecution’s case.

7. Conviction and Presumption under POCSO

The Court noted that the presumption under Section 29 of the POCSO Act applied, which shifts the burden of proof onto the accused once the foundational facts of the case are proven. The appellant failed to produce evidence to rebut this presumption.

8. Sentencing and Conclusion

The Court upheld the Special Judge’s sentencing of 20 years of rigorous imprisonment, highlighting the grave nature of the crime. The judgment concluded that the appellant, a married man with children, took advantage of the victim’s trust and committed an inhuman act.

Acts and Sections Discussed:

1. Section 4, POCSO Act, 2012 – Aggravated penetrative sexual assault with a minor.
2. Section 377, IPC – Unnatural offences (carnal intercourse against the order of nature).
3. Section 506, IPC – Criminal intimidation.
4. Section 29, POCSO Act – Presumption of guilt when foundational facts are established.