The Patna High Court, while allowing an appeal filed against the impugned judgment of conviction and order passed by the Special Judge, whereby the sole appellant had been found guilty of the offence punishable under Section 6 of POCSO Act and Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, held that though one child witness supported the prosecution case, for want of his testing by learned Trial Court regarding deposing capacity prior to his deposition, his evidence could not be relied upon.
Brief Facts:
The F.I.R. was registered on 30.10.2019 on the fardbeyan of the mother of the victim for an offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the POCSO Act against the sole appellant. After registration of the F.I.R., the investigation commenced. The cognizance of the offence was taken and charges under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 6 of the POCSO Act were framed against the appellant who pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Learned Trial Court found the appellant guilty of the offence punishable under Section 6 of the POCSO Act and Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code.
Contentions of the Appellant:
Learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that the appellant is innocent and has falsely been implicated. He argued that even as per the prosecution evidence, there is no sufficient material on record to connect the appellant with the alleged offence beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecution badly failed to prove the foundational facts of an allegation of rape against the victim by the appellant. The impugned judgment of conviction and the order of sentence are not sustainable in the eye of law and the same are liable to be set aside.
Contentions of the Respondents:
Learned Counsel for the Respondents submitted that there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment and the appellant has been rightly convicted and appropriately sentenced.
Observations of the Court:
The Court noted that the three Defence Witnesses deposed that the appellant had falsely been implicated by the informant for extraneous consideration. The prosecution case is supported neither by the victim nor her parents against the appellant. Though, injury has been found on the private part of the victim but whether this injury has been caused by rape by the appellant could not be proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt.
The Court observed that though one child witness has supported the prosecution case, for want of his testing by learned Trial Court regarding deposing capacity prior to his deposition, his evidence could not be relied upon. More so, for want of any incriminating evidence from the mouth of the victim and her parents, the appellant could not be convicted on feeble evidence of a child witness.
The decision of the Court:
The Patna High Court, allowing the appeal, held that the prosecution failed to prove foundational facts of the alleged rape against the victim by the appellant beyond reasonable doubt.
Case Title: Pramod Mandal vs The State Of Bihar
Coram: Hon’ble Justice Ashutosh Kumar and Hon’ble Justice Jitendra Kumar
Case No.: Criminal Appela (DB) No.305 of 2023
Advocate for the Appellant: Mr. Ajay Kumar Sinha
Advocate for the Respondents: Mr. Parmeshwar Mehta
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :