The Bombay High Court stated that relying on medical evidence alone cannot lead to a conviction in POCSO cases. This type of evidence is only supportive.
The Bombay High Court has ruled that courts cannot solely rely on medical evidence for convictions in POCSO cases, as such evidence is only supportive. The court overturned the conviction of a man sentenced to 20 years in prison under Section 376-AB of the IPC and Sections 6 and 10 of the POCSO Act, 2012. The judges noted that the trial court’s decision was based only on the medical evidence, which is not enough without other strong evidence. Justice G.A. Sanap stated, “Without solid evidence of the incident, it was incorrect for the judge to depend solely on medical evidence for the conviction. Besides the medical officer’s testimony, there was no other strong evidence against the appellant.”
Advocate R.M. Daga represented the appellant, while Additional Public Prosecutor P.P. Pendke represented the respondents. The victim’s mother had accused the appellant of sexually assaulting her 10-year-old daughter. The appellant was a landlord living in the same building as the victim’s maternal uncle. The prosecution claimed that the appellant lured the victim with the promise of wheat flour and then assaulted her. The victim told her maternal aunt, who then informed her mother. A police report was filed, leading to the appellant’s arrest. The trial court found him guilty. However, the High Court observed that the prosecution relied mainly on the testimonies of the victim, her mother, and her maternal aunt, all of whom later changed their statements and did not support the case against the appellant.
The victim shared her account of the incident with the Magistrate during her statement under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. However, the Bench stated that this cannot be seen as strong evidence for a conviction. The Court pointed out that aside from the medical officer’s testimony, there is no solid evidence to support the charges against the appellant. The Bench remarked, “The learned Judge considered the history of the assault as significant evidence. In my opinion, the Judge was incorrect in treating the medical officer’s testimony as strong evidence for the charges against the appellant. This testimony should only serve as supporting evidence.”
As a result, the Court declared, “The conviction and sentence given to the appellant by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Special Judge, POCSO Court), Nagpur, on 03.06.2023, in Special Criminal (Child) Case No.370/2022, is overturned.” Thus, the High Court accepted the Criminal Appeal.
Cause Title: Pradeep Gulabrao Choudhari v. State of Maharashtra & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2024:BHC-NAG:13178)
Appearance:
Appellant: Advocate R. M. Daga
Respondents: Additional Public Prosecutor P.P. Pendke; Advocate A.Y. Sharma
