Implicit Reliance On Medical Evidence Can’t Be The Basis Of Conviction In POCSO Cases; Such Evidence Is Only Corroborative: Bombay High Court
The Bombay High Court has held that implicit reliance on medical evidence by Courts cannot be the basis of conviction in POCSO cases as such evidence is only corroborative.
The Court acquitted a man convicted under Section 376-AB of the IPC and Sections 6 and 10 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012. The Bench quashed the 20-year rigorous imprisonment sentence handed down by the Special POCSO Court, observing that the Trial Court’s Judgment was based only on substantive evidence.
A Single Bench of Justice G.A. Sanap observed, “In the absence of substantive evidence as to the occurrence of the incident it was not proper on the part of the learned Judge to place implicit reliance on the medical evidence to base the conviction of the appellant. Except for the evidence of the medical officer, there is no other substantive evidence to prove the charge against the appellant.”
Advocate R.M. Daga appeared for the Appellant, while Additional Public Prosecutor P.P. Pendke represented the Respondents.
The mother of the victim had filed a complaint alleging that the Appellant had sexually assaulted her 10-year-old daughter. The Appellant was a landlord residing in the same premises where the victim’s maternal uncle lived as a tenant.
According to the Prosecution, the Appellant lured the victim under the pretext of providing wheat flour and assaulted her. The victim reported the incident to her maternal aunt, who informed her mother. A police report was filed, and the investigation led to the appellant’s arrest. The Trial Court convicted the Appellant.
The High Court, upon reviewing the evidence, noted that the prosecution relied heavily on the testimony of the victim, her mother, and her maternal aunt. However, all three witnesses turned hostile during the trial and did not support the prosecution’s case.
The victim admitted to narrating the incident to the Magistrate during her statement under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C., however, the Bench held that it “cannot be considered as substantive evidence to form the basis of the conviction.”
The Court noted, “Except for the evidence of the medical officer, there is no other substantive evidence to prove the charge against the appellant.”
“The learned Judge has accepted this history of assault as an important piece of evidence. In my view, the learned Judge was not right in accepting the evidence of the medical officer as substantive piece of evidence to prove the charge against the appellant. The evidence of the medical officer can be used as corroborative evidence,” the Bench stated.
Consequently, the Court held, “The judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed against the appellant by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Special Judge, POCSO Court), Nagpur, dated 03.06.2023, in Special Criminal (Child) Case No.370/2022, is quashed and set aside.”
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the Criminal Appeal.
Cause Title: Pradeep Gulabrao Choudhari v. State of Maharashtra & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2024:BHC-NAG:13178)
Appearance:
Appellant: Advocate R. M. Daga
Respondents: Additional Public Prosecutor P.P. Pendke; Advocate A.Y. Sharma
