The Bombay High Court acquitted an accused in a sexual offence case due to inconsistencies in the victim’s testimony and lack of conclusive evidence of age, highlighting that material contradictions and omissions can undermine the prosecution’s case even when the victim’s evidence is central.
The case arose when the mother of the complainant reported that her elder daughter had gone missing. The complainant later accompanied the accused for several days. During this period, the complainant stayed at the residence of the accused and other acquaintances. The accused allegedly performed a symbolic marriage and engaged in sexual activity. Following the incident, a formal complaint was lodged, leading to investigation and prosecution under Sections 363, 376 IPC, and Section 4 of the POCSO Act.
The appellant contended that the complainant voluntarily accompanied him, and no force or coercion was involved. Counsel for the appellant highlighted inconsistencies in the testimony of the complainant, her mother, and other witnesses, particularly regarding the complainant’s date of birth, and argued that no independent evidence established lack of consent. The prosecution submitted that the complainant was a minor and therefore legally incapable of providing consent, emphasizing medical reports showing injuries, and relied on statements that the accused had threatened the complainant.
The Court analyzed the evidence and found that the prosecution failed to conclusively prove the age of the complainant, citing discrepancies between school records, municipal certificates, and witness testimonies. The Court noted significant inconsistencies in the complainant’s statements at various stages, especially regarding alleged threats and incapacitation.
The Court observed that the complainant remained in the company of the accused for several days without attempting to leave or raise alarm, and was presented to witnesses wearing a Mangalsutra and recognized as the accused’s spouse. The Court stated, "In the absence of credible evidence to prove that the complainant was below 18 years of age and in view of the serious doubts surrounding the lack of consent, the essential ingredients of the offence under Section 376 IPC are not proved beyond reasonable doubt."
The Court referred to precedents, emphasizing that material contradictions in a witness’s testimony can preclude conviction, even when conviction on sole testimony is generally permissible.
The Court allowed the criminal appeal, quashed the judgment and order of conviction dated 17th October, 2022, passed by the Special Court (POCSO), Nagpur, and acquitted the appellant of the offence under Section 376 IPC. The accused was ordered to be set at liberty immediately, and any fine paid was to be refunded. The Court also directed that the fees of the appellant’s counsel be quantified and paid within four weeks.
Case Title: Roshan vs. State of Maharashtra
Case No.: Public Interest Litigation (PIL) No. - 1118 Of 2025
Coram: Justice Nivedita P. Mehta
Advocate for Petitioner: Adv. Amit M. Balpande
Advocate for Respondent: Adv. S.S.Hulke (APP)
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
