Bombay High Court Suspends Sentence in Decade-Old Pocso Case, Cites Evidence Discrepancies
In a significant development, the Bombay High Court has granted bail to a man who has spent ten years in prison following his conviction for the sexual assault and rape of a minor child in a Mumbai suburb. The court's decision came after identifying what it described as "major inconsistencies" in the evidence presented during the trial.
Court Order and Legal Proceedings
Justice R M Joshi, presiding over the case, issued the bail order on February 11, 2024, directing that "the substantive sentence imposed against the appellant shall stand suspended" until a final decision is reached on his appeal. The appeal challenges a February 2024 judgment from a special court that had originally sentenced the accused to twenty years of rigorous imprisonment.
The conviction was under the stringent Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (Pocso) Act, specifically for aggravated penetrative sexual assault, alongside charges under the Indian Penal Code for the rape of a minor.
Background of the Case and Prosecution's Claims
According to the prosecution's narrative, the incident occurred on December 17, 2015, in a Mumbai suburb. The victim, who was five years old at the time, was playing with her seven-year-old sister when the accused allegedly approached them. He is said to have taken the younger girl to his residence, locked the door to exclude her sister, and then committed the sexual assault.
The First Information Report (FIR) was registered on December 23, 2015, formally introducing the allegations of the offence. The case proceeded through the legal system, culminating in the special court's conviction and the imposition of the two-decade sentence earlier this year.
Defense Arguments Highlighting Evidence Inconsistencies
The defense, represented by advocate Shashikant Chandak, presented several key arguments that ultimately influenced the High Court's decision. Justice Joshi noted that "prima facie, the evidence on record indicates that there are major inconsistencies in the statements of the victim, her sister, and her mother."
Chandak pointed to specific discrepancies, including:
- A medical examination conducted on December 17, 2015, failed to find any evidence of sexual assault.
- Contradictory accounts between the victim and her sister regarding whether the lights in the house were switched on or off during the alleged incident.
- Inconsistent statements from the victim and her mother about the mother's presence at home when the child reportedly went to her crying after the event.
The defense counsel argued that the "history of sexual assault given at a later point of time may not depict the correct facts," a contention that the court found substantial.
Prosecution's Opposition and Trial Court Observations
Opposing the bail application, the prosecution and the advocate representing the victim's mother emphasized that the minor had provided a detailed narration of the assault. They referenced the trial court's observation about potential miscommunication between the victim and the medical officer during the examination, suggesting this might explain the lack of physical evidence.
However, Justice Joshi maintained that "The inconsistencies are material in nature and cannot be brushed aside by way of branding them as insignificant." This judicial assessment played a crucial role in the bail decision.
Court's Rationale for Granting Bail
In justifying the bail order, Justice Joshi considered multiple factors:
- The applicant has already served ten years in prison since the incident.
- His appeal is unlikely to be heard in the near future, given typical court backlogs.
- The accused has no prior criminal history, reducing concerns about repeat offences.
- There is minimal risk of flight, as he is not considered likely to abscond.
The court imposed strict conditions on the bail, explicitly prohibiting the accused from contacting the victim or her family members. Justice Joshi warned that any violation of these conditions would result in immediate cancellation of bail.
This case underscores the complex interplay between witness testimony, medical evidence, and judicial scrutiny in sensitive Pocso Act matters, highlighting how evidentiary inconsistencies can significantly impact legal outcomes even after conviction.
