Nagpur: Holding that it can’t convict an accused merely on the basis of a girl’s allegations of multiple sexual intercourse, the Nagpur bench of Bombay high court acquitted a 27-year-old man accused of sexually exploiting a 17-year-old repeatedly for two months and impregnating her.
The Hinganghat sessions court had convicted petitioner Jageshwar Kawle under IPC and Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (Pocso) Act, 2012, and awarded 10 years of rigorous imprisonment on November 12, 2019. The HC acquitted him, stating that there’s no conclusive evidence that the survivor conceived from the accused and prosecution was silent as regards DNA test and what happened to her pregnancy.
“Except the survivor’s statement, with regard to sexual intercourse at the house of accused’s sister, there’s absolutely nothing supporting prosecution’s case of rape. Only on the basis of allegation with regard to commitment of sexual intercourse on many occasions, it would be highly irrational to convict the accused to 10 years’ imprisonment,” justice Pushpa Ganediwala ruled.
The survivor, who hails from Umari village in Samudrapur of Wardha district, was staying on rent at Hinganghat in Wardha district for her Std XII classes, where she met Kawle in 2015. One day, he took her to his parents’ village at Gosikhurd in Chandrapur district, and then to his sister’s home for a couple of months, where she alleged that the accused had sexual intercourse with her many times.
After the girl went missing from Hinganghat, her parents lodged a complaint with Girad police station on May 8, 2015. When the police brought the couple to Hinganghat, the girl was sent for medical examination. When she refused, the magistrate sent her to the Child Welfare Committee in Wardha. During her urine pregnancy test (UPT) she was found positive and a charge of rape was added to the FIR. She was 17 years and nine months old at that time.
After completion of investigation, the special Pocso court convicted Kalwe, which he challenged in HC.
Justice Ganediwala pointed out that as per birth certificate and her father’s testimony, the girl was born on August 1, 1997. “At the relevant time, she was just three months short of attaining majority. A perusal of her testimony would reflect that she has vividly described her love relationship with the accused. This omission is so much material in nature that it has strength to decide the case’s fate. She has not stated before police the incidents of sexual relations between them at his sister’s place.”
The judge noted that the girl didn’t depose with regard to dates, time, who were present in the house at the relevant time, how other members permitted the unmarried boy and girl to sleep together, how many rooms were there in the house, how could she and accused get privacy, and under what circumstances was she forced to establish physical relationship.
“No doubt, her testimony is sufficient for conviction, however, the same ought to inspire HC’s confidence. Given the facts and circumstances, this court is of the opinion that the prosecution couldn’t establish, beyond reasonable doubt, the offence of rape against the accused,” justice Ganediwala said before releasing the accused.
WHAT HC SAID
* Prosecution’s record is silent on DNA test & what happened to her pregnancy
* Except survivor’s statement, there’s nothing supporting prosecution case
* No conclusive evidence to conclude that she conceived from accused
* Survivor vividly described about her love relationship with accused
* She hasn’t informed about incidents of sexual relations at accused’s sister’s place
* She didn’t depose on how unmarried boy & girl were permitted to sleep together
* Prosecution couldn’t establish offence of rape against accused