SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2015 Supreme(Bom) 2566

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT AURANGABAD BENCH
M.T. Joshi, J.
Sachin, S/o Baliram Kakde – Appellant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra, through Police Station MIDC, Latur – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 78 of 2015
Decided On : 10-08-2015

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. N.S. Tekale.
For the Respondent: Mr. V.P. Kadam.

Presumptions under the law are rebuttable and cannot be equated with conclusive proof.

Headnote:

POCSO Act - Acquittal - Indian Penal Code, 1860 section 6, 12, 292, 506 - The court acquitted the appellant of the offences punishable under section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, section 6, 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, and section 292 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code.

Fact of the Case:

The appellant was convicted for offences under the Indian Penal Code and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act based on the prosecution's case that he had committed sexual offences against a minor victim. The victim alleged that the appellant had administered a tablet to her, committed sexual intercourse, and videographed the incidents, threatening to make the video public.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the medical evidence contradicted the prosecution's case, as the victim's hymen was found intact with no tears, despite her allegations of repeated sexual intercourse. The court also noted discrepancies in the evidence related to the mobile handset and call details, leading to a reasonable doubt regarding the appellant's guilt.

Issues: The issues before the court included whether the appellant had committed the alleged sexual offences, videographed the victim, and made her exhibit her body parts, as well as whether he had criminally intimidated the victim.

Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the medical evidence contradicting the victim's allegations, discrepancies in the evidence related to the mobile handset, and the rebuttal of the presumption under section 29 of the POCSO Act. The court emphasized that presumptions are rebuttable and cannot be equated with conclusive proof.

Final Decision: The court acquitted the appellant of all the offences he was convicted for, and directed his release if not required in any other offences. The fine amount, if deposited, was to be refunded to the appellant after sixty days.

JUDGMENT :

M.T. Joshi, J.

1. Heard both sides.

2. Aggrieved by the recording of conviction of the present appellant by the learned Special Judge, Latur vide judgment and order dated 5th December, 2014 in Spl. Case (POCSO Act) No. 14 of 2013 for the offences punishable under section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and section 6, 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act and under section 292 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, and consequently sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay fine of Rs. 2,000/- in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 2 months for the offence punishable under section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 3 years and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 1 month for the offence punishable under section 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act and to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 2 years and to pay fine of Rs. 2,000/, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 2 months for the offence punishable under section 292 of the Indian Penal Code and to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 1 year and to pay fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 15 days for the offence punishable under section 506 of the Indian Penal Code, with further direction to run the substantive sentences concurrently, the present appeal is preferred.

3. The prosecution case, in short, is as under:

That the victim of the offence, a 16 years old girl resides in Latur. Her father has given on rent one room to the appellant and his family members. The mother of the prosecutrix, who is the complainant carries a household mess in the same house. The victim was studying in one school, namely, 'Sanskar Vardhini'.

It was noted by mother of the victim that for a period of one week preceding the filing of the FIR on 16/05/2013, the victim had changed her behaviour. She used to remain gloomy and did not properly eat. In the circumstances, upon counselling, she told the mother that, for a period of about one month, the present appellant used to threat her and, therefore, used to make her to come on the upper floor of the building and rape her by threatening her that the video clip made by him of their relations in the mobile would be made public.

Even on 10/05/2013, in the noon, the appellant compelled her to visit his plot and thereat, he raped her. There, he also threatened that in case, the incidents are made public, he would kill her.

All these narrations were made by the victim to her mother on 12/05/2013. On the very same day, the appellant came in front of the house. At that time, the complainant made enquiry with him. Upon that, he showed the video clip to the mother of the prosecutrix also and threatened that he would make the video clip public and, thereafter went away.

Upon further enquiry with the prosecutrix, she told her mother that initially, the present appellant had administered certain tablets to her and while she was stupefied, he made the video shooting in his mobile phone. In the circumstances, on the next day, the complaint came to be filed.

4. The investigation was carried. Statements of the witnesses including that of the victim was recorded. The victim was sent for medical examination. Regular exercise like that of seizing of the clothes was carried. The mobile phone of the present appellant was seized in which the video clipping was found. The Investigating Officer therefore prepared the compact disk (C.D.) of the same. The appellant also handed over empty packet of tablet named 'vigora'. Necessary property was sent for chemical analysis and ultimately the charge sheet came to be filed.

5. Before the learned Special Judge, Latur in all 12 witnesses were examined. Out of them, P.W. 1 is the victim. P.W. 2 is her mother. P.W. 3 - Dr. Umesh Selukar had examined the appellant and rest of the witnesses are the panch witnesses regarding seizure of the p








































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top