Aurangabad Bench finds lack of medical evidence for penetrative sexual assault; Convicts accused for sexual assault without penetration.
In a significant judgment, the Bombay High Court's Aurangabad Bench, comprising Justices Sandipkumar C. More and Abasaheb D. Shinde, has modified the conviction of Amol Jayram Landge, originally sentenced under Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act) and Sections 376(2)(i), 376(2)(n), and 376(3) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) due to insufficient medical evidence corroborating penetrative sexual assault. The court, however, upheld the conviction under Section 8 of the POCSO Act for sexual assault without penetration.
The judgment arises from Criminal Appeal No. 98 of 2022 filed by Amol, challenging his conviction by the Special Judge and Additional Sessions Judge-2, Hingoli, and Criminal Appeal No. 818 of 2025 filed by the State seeking enhancement of the sentence.
The case involved a minor victim who was allegedly forcibly taken by the accused, leading to charges including rape and aggravated penetrative sexual assault. The trial court initially convicted Amol based on the victim's testimony and circumstantial evidence, imposing a sentence of rigorous imprisonment for ten years.
Upon appeal, the High Court scrutinized the evidence, particularly focusing on the medical examination of the victim, which revealed an intact hymen and absence of physical injuries, contradicting claims of forcible sexual intercourse. The court noted that the victim's testimony, while credible, lacked corroboration from medical evidence, thereby failing to establish the elements of penetrative sexual assault.
In its judgment, the High Court emphasized the inadmissibility of confessional statements made by the accused to a Medical Officer while in police custody, as per Section 26 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The trial court's reliance on such statements was deemed erroneous, leading to the modification of the conviction.
The court ultimately convicted Amol under Section 8 of the POCSO Act, acknowledging the possibility of sexual assault without penetration, given the circumstances and the victim's minor age. Amol was sentenced to five years of rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 5,000, adjusted against the amount already deposited.
The judgment underscores the importance of corroborative evidence in sexual offence cases and reinforces legal safeguards against inadmissible confessional statements. The decision also highlights judicial discretion in modifying sentences based on evidential scrutiny.
The appeals filed by the State for enhancing the sentence were dismissed, aligning with the modified judgment. The appointed counsels for the accused and the victim were awarded fees by the High Court Legal Services Sub-Committee.
This ruling serves as a critical precedent in evaluating evidence in cases involving sexual offences under the POCSO Act and IPC, particularly concerning the necessity of medical corroboration for charges of penetrative sexual assault.
Bottom line:-
POCSO Act - Conviction under Section 6 of the POCSO Act and Section 376 of IPC set aside due to lack of medical evidence proving penetrative sexual assault. Accused convicted under Section 8 of the POCSO Act for sexual assault without penetration, considering the victim's minor age and circumstances.
Statutory provision(s): Sections 6, 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012; Sections 376(2)(i), 376(2)(n), 376(3), 363, 366A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860; Sections 25, 26 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
Amol v. State of Maharashtra, (Bombay)(Aurangabad Bench)(DB) : Law Finder Doc id # 2889007
