The Chhattisgarh High Court allowed the appeal and acquitted the appellant of all charges under Sections 366 and 506 (Part-II) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 4 of the POCSO Act. The Court held that in the absence of corroboration, a retracted Section 164 CrPC statement is not substantive evidence and cannot form the sole basis of conviction.
Brief Facts:
The appellant was convicted by the Special Sessions Judge (POCSO Act) for abducting a minor girl and committing sexual intercourse with her against her will. As per the prosecution, the victim was allegedly taken from her lawful guardianship and sexually assaulted. During the investigation, the victim’s statement under Section 164 CrPC was recorded. A medical examination was conducted, but the report did not confirm recent intercourse. Based on the documentary evidence and the statement under Section 164 CrPC, the trial court convicted the appellant and sentenced him to life imprisonment under the POCSO Act, along with concurrent sentences under IPC provisions. Hence, the present appeal.
Contentions of the Appellant:
The learned counsel for the appellant argued that the trial court erred in convicting the appellant based solely on the victim’s statement under Section 164 CrPC. It was contended that the victim turned hostile in court and clearly denied the allegations, stating that she acted under pressure from her stepmother. Moreover, no forensic or medical evidence supported the prosecution case, and there was a significant delay in filing the FIR.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The learned State counsel submitted that the conviction was proper and justified. It was contended that the Section 164 statement and other documentary evidence sufficiently established the commission of the offense.
Observations of the Court:
The Court noted that the victim did not support the prosecution in her testimony before the trial court and denied the allegations of abduction or sexual assault. She admitted that her complaint and statement under Section 164 CrPC were made under pressure from her aunt.
The Court observed that the statement under Section 164 of CrPC is not evidence much less substantial evidence within the meaning of Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and it can be used only for the purpose of corroboration or contradiction. In the absence of any other legally admissible evidence corroborating the evidence under Section 164 of CrPC, no conviction can be recorded. The Court said that the medical report was inconclusive, and the prosecution failed to produce the FSL report. Since the victim had retracted her statement and there was no other corroborative evidence, the conviction was unsustainable.
Decision of the Court:
The Chhattisgarh High Court, allowing the appeal, set aside the appellant’s conviction and sentence under Sections 366, 506 (Part-II) IPC, and Section 4 of the POCSO Act.
Case Title: Ramesh Netam vs. State of Chhattisgarh
Coram: Hon’ble Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal and Hon’ble Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari
Case No.: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 1370/2015
Advocate for the Appellant: Mrs. Meena Shastri
Advocate for the Respondent: Mr. Arvind Dubey, Government Advocate
Picture Source : YouTube.com