Section 6 Rape Victim girl of five years old – Medical does not support the case of prosecution – Judgment set aside/ Appeal Allowed
Pravin Ruprao Harde vs STATE OF MAHARASHTRA CRLA 67/21 25/07/24 [ BOMBAY HIGH COURT ]
Sections 376(2)(i) and 376(2)(j) IPC POCSO ACT Section 6 Rape Victim girl of five years old – Medical does not support the case of prosecution – It is the defence of the accused that, on account of the household property, there is a dispute between him and the parents of the victim – It is his defence that, on account of that, he was falsely implicated in this crime – It is true that the suggestions put forth in the cross-examination of the witnesses consistent with his defence of enmity have been denied by the witnesses – However, the fact remains that the evidence adduced by the prosecution does not inspire confidence – There are material omissions and inconsistencies in their evidence on the vital aspect of the case of prosecution – Their statements recorded by the _ learned Magistrate under Section 164 of the CrP.C are also inconsistent as to the occurrence of the incident and the actual act committed by the accused – In the decision-making process, the Court should not get carried away by sympathy – Court has to ensure that the evidence on record is sufficient to prove the charge – Evidence is not sufficient to prove the charge – Accused, therefore, is entitled to get the benefit of doubt – Conviction and sentence – Appeal allowed.
Relevant Paras
16] It is the defence of the accused that, on account of the household property, there is a dispute between him and the parents of the victim. It is his defence that, on account of that, he was falsely implicated in this crime. It is true that the suggestions put forth in the cross-examination of the witnesses consistent with his defence of enmity have been denied by the witnesses. However, the fact remains that the evidence adduced by the prosecution does not
inspire confidence. There are material omissions and
inconsistencies in their evidence on the vital aspect of the case of prosecution. Their statements recorded by the learned Magistrate under Section 164 of the Cr.PC are also inconsistent as to the occurrence of the incident and the actual act committed by the accused. In my view, the prosecution, in this case, has failed to
prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The inconsistent evidence of the witnesses on material aspects sufficient to doubt the credibility and trustworthiness of the witnesses. In such a crime, the Court has sympathy with the child.
However, in the decision-making process, the Court should not get carried away by sympathy. The Court has to ensure that the evidence on record is sufficient to prove the charge.
17] In this case, on minute perusal of the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, I am satisfied that it leaves a scope to doubt their credibility and trustworthiness. The accused has been sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for ten years on the basis of such evidence. In my view, the learned Additional Sessions
Judge has not taken proper care. The oral evidence is not corroborated by the medical evidence. In the ordinary circumstances, if the accused had committed the act as alleged by the witnesses, then the Medical Officer ought to have noticed some injuries or at least swelling to the genital of the victim. In my view,
therefore, the evidence is not sufficient to prove the charge. The accused, in the teeth of such doubtful evidence, cannot be held guilty of the charge. As such, I conclude that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused. The accused, therefore, is
entitled to get the benefit of doubt. The appeal, therefore, deserves to be allowed. Hence, the following order.
Click here to read the judgment ⬇️
Pravin Ruprao Harde VS State of Maharashtra Judgment Nagpur bench The Law Literates
all rights Reserved ( Vaibhav Tomar Adv)
Plea that as the complainant/victim, they have a right to be heard at every. stage of criminal proceedings, including revision petitions – Held, petitioner, being the victim, has an independent right to be heard in the Revision Petitions, particularly because these petitions seek the culmination of criminal proceedings that could affect the petitioner – Therefore, it is correct not to implead the petitioner as a party to the Revision Petitions
– However, the Court found that restricting the petitioner to only assisting through the APP was not appropriate – Petitioner should be afforded a fair and reasonable opportunity to be heard directly in the Revision Petitions – This includes the right to file written submissions – ASJ is directed to grant the petitioner a fair and reasonable opportunity to be heard in the Revision Petitions. [Paras 72, 73, 79 and 80]