Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(Bom) 6276
BOMBAY HIGH COURT
G. A. SANAP, J
RAHUL GAUTAM LAHASE – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF MAH. THR. PSO PS ANJANGAON SURJI AMRAVATI – Respondent
APEAL 84 / 2022
Mr. Mir Nagman Ali, Advocate with Ms. Gulfashan Ansari, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. H. D. Futane, A. P. P. for respondent no.1/State. Mrs. Smita P. Deshpande, Advocate appointed for respondent no.2
The court emphasized that the prosecution must prove charges beyond reasonable doubt, and insufficient evidence led to the acquittal of the accused in a sexual assault case.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code - Section 376 - Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 - Sections 4 and 8 - Information Technology Act, 2000 - Section 67 - Conviction for sexual assault and related offences - The accused was sentenced to 10 years RI and fines for sexual assault, with additional sentences for related offences - The victim reported the incident after a significant delay, citing fear of defamation - The court found the evidence insufficient to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt, leading to the acquittal of the accused. (Paras 1, 24)
(B) Delay in Reporting - The court emphasized the need for a satisfactory explanation for the delay in lodging the report, which was not adequately provided - The victim's conduct and the circumstances surrounding the case raised doubts about the credibility of the prosecution's case. (Paras 22, 24)
Facts of the case:
The victim, a minor, was allegedly assaulted by the accused after being coerced through threats regarding the circulation of her photographs. The report was lodged months later, leading to questions about the reliability of the evidence presented. (Paras 2, 22)
Findings of Court:
The court found the prosecution's evidence insufficient to establish the charges against the accused, leading to the conclusion that the accused was entitled to the benefit of doubt. (Paras 24)
Issues: The main issues included the credibility of the victim's testimony, the delay in reporting the incident, and the sufficiency of evidence to support the charges. (Paras 22, 24)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the evidence presented was not convincing or reliable enough to support a conviction, emphasizing the importance of proving charges beyond reasonable doubt. (Paras 24)
Result: The appeal is allowed, and the accused is acquitted of all charges.
1. In this appeal, challenge is to the judgment and order dated 22.11.2021, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.2, Achalpur, whereby the learned Judge held the accused guilty for the offences punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code ; under Section 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as “the POCSO Act” for short) ; and under Section 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as “the IT Act” for short). The appellant has been sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 10 (ten) years and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) and in default to suffer further RI for 3 (three) months for the offence punishable under Section 376 of the IPC . The appellant has been further sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 2 (two) years and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) and in default to suffer further RI for 1 (one) month, on each count, for the offence punishable under Section 8 of the POCSO Act and under section 67 of the IT Act. No separate sentence has been awarded for the offence punishable under Section 4 of the POCSO Act.
2. BACKGROUND FACTS The victim (PW10), who is the informant, had lodged a report with Police Station, Anjangaon Surji, Dist. Amravati on 19.10.2017. On the report lodged by the informant/victim, the wheels of the investigation were put into motion. The prosecution case, which can be discerned from the report and the charge-sheet, is that the incident of penetrative sexual assault took place in the month of March- 2017. The appellant/accused is resident of Raver, Dist. Jalgaon. The informant/victim, on the date of the incident, was studying in 12th standard (Science) at Jaisingh Junior College, Pathrot. The accused had sent a friend request to the victim on Facebook. She accepted the friend request sent by the accused. They got acquainted with each other through Facebook. The accused sent his mobile No. 9033288552 to her. The victim, on being insisted by the accused, shared her mobile No. 8698268569 and 9975175667 with the accused. They would talk with each other on phone. On the request of the accused, she disclosed him that she was studying at Jaisingh Junior College at Pathrot. One day, the accused came to her college at Pathrot to meet her. He made a phone call to her and asked her to come out of the college to meet him. She came out of the college. She recognized the accused as she had seen his photo on Facebook. She was frightened and on that day she did not talk with the accused and left for her house at Kapustalni.
3. It is stated that thereafter on 22.03.2017, the accused contacted the victim on phone and informed her that he has come to Anjangaon Surji at Vrundavan Hotel. He called the informant to the said hotel to meet him. The victim went to Vrundavan Hotel and met him. The accused took her into a room of the hotel. The accused took out a new T-shirt from his bag and asked the victim to wear the same. It is stated that while the victim was wearing T-shirt, the accused took her photographs without her knowledge. The accused, thereafter, threatened her that he would make those photographs viral, if she did not allow him to have physical relation with her. The victim fearing defamation kept quiet. It is stated that the accused committed penetrative sexual intercourse with her against her consent. Thereafter, she returned to her house at Kapustalni. She made an inquiry about the accused from her friends. She came to know that the accused did not possess good character. She, therefore, discontinued her contact with the accused on Facebook.
4. It is further the case of the prosecution that the accused uploaded the obscene photographs of the victim on his Facebook account and tagged the same to her sister, Kanchan’s Facebook account. The accused sent friend requests to the relatives of the victim. The accused also sent obscene photographs of the vict
