The Patna High Court, while allowing an appeal filed against the judgment of conviction passed by Ld. Additional District and Sessions Judge, whereby the sole appellant was found guilty of the offense punishable under Sections 376(2)(i) of the IPC and Section 4 of the POCSO Act, held that medical opinions can be very useful guiding factors to be considered in the absence of the documents as mentioned in Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015.
Brief Facts:
On the basis of the written report, a case was registered against the sole appellant for the offense punishable under Section 376 of the IPC and Section 4 of the POCSO Act, 2012. The prosecution case is that the informant’s daughter was sleeping. His co-villager Amarjeet Ram, entered his house and gagged his daughter and took her to his own house, and committed rape on her. After the closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under Section 313 CrPC confronting him with incriminating circumstances that came in the prosecution evidence, so as to afford him an opportunity to explain those circumstances. During this examination, he stated that he had heard the evidence of the prosecution, but he did not explain any circumstances. However, he denied the charges and claimed to be innocent. Learned Trial Court found that the Prosecution has proved its case against the appellant under Section 376(ii) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the POCSO Act.
Contentions of the Appellant:
The Learned counsel for the Appellant submitted that the Learned Court below failed to appreciate the evidence on record properly. He argued that the prosecution failed to prove the age of the victim as per the procedure provided in the law. He further contended that the prosecution badly failed to prove its case against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt.
Contentions of the Respondents:
The Learned counsel for the Respondents submitted that the victim was way below 18 years of age at the time of occurrence and the prosecution has amply proved its case against the appellant. There is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment and order of sentence.
Observations of the Court:
The Court noted that despite Sections 29 and 30 of the POCSO Act, 2012 the prosecution is not absolved of its burden to prove that the victim is a child i.e. below 18 years of age and he/she has been subjected to sexual assault by the accused and such foundational facts have to be proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubts.
The Court observed that the proof beyond reasonable doubt is not necessarily a perfect proof to mathematical precision. All that is required is the establishment of such a degree of probability that a prudent man may on its basis believe in the existence of the facts in issue. The Court said that medical opinion regarding the age of a person is no conclusive evidence because an exact assessment of the age cannot be made on the basis of medical tests. There is always a possibility of errors on both higher and lower sides. However, medical opinions can be very useful guiding factors to be considered in the absence of the documents as mentioned in Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015. The Court remarked that the testimony of the prosecution witnesses is not trustworthy and the prosecution has failed to prove the foundational facts.
The decision of the Court:
The Patna High Court, allowing the appeal, held that the allegation of sexual assault cannot be held to have been proved beyond reasonable doubt.
Case Title: Manjit Ram vs The State of Bihar & Anr.
Coram: Hon’ble Justice Ashutosh Kumar and Hon’ble Justice Jitendra Kumar
Case no.: CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No.1388 of 2018
Advocate for the Appellant: Mr. Ajay Kumar Thakur
Advocate for the Respondents: Mr. Abhimanyu Sharma
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source : https://www.flickr.com/photos/worldbank/14486015000/
