Facts

The appeal arose from a judgment of the Special POCSO Court, Mumbai, convicting the appellant for offences under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), Sections 4 and 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (

POCSO), and Section 420 IPC. The Trial Court sentenced the appellant to rigorous imprisonment of 15 years for the sexual offences and 3 years for cheating.

The prosecution case was that the victim, who was a minor at the time of the alleged incidents in June 2017, developed a relationship with the accused. It was alleged that the accused had sexual intercourse with her on the promise of marriage and subsequently induced her to part with cash and gold amounting to approximately ₹4 lakhs. Upon the accused allegedly refusing to marry her and blocking communication, a complaint was lodged, leading to registration of an FIR and filing of a charge sheet.

During trial, the prosecution examined six witnesses, including the victim. Documentary evidence included the victim’s birth certificate, medical examination report, FIR, and panchnamas. The accused denied the allegations and examined himself in defence.

Contentions

On behalf of the appellant, it was contended that the testimony of the victim was unreliable and insufficient to sustain a conviction without independent corroboration. It was argued that the prosecution failed to conclusively establish sexual assault and that the cross-examination of the victim demonstrated consensual relations.

With respect to the charge under Section 420 IPC, the appellant contended that there was no documentary or independent evidence to prove that any money or gold had been transferred to him. It was specifically argued that no receipts were produced, no recovery was effected, and a key witness from whom the victim allegedly borrowed money was not examined.

The State opposed the appeal, contending that the victim’s age was conclusively proved and that her consent was irrelevant in law. The prosecution argued that medical evidence corroborated the victim’s testimony and that once her evidence was accepted for sexual offences, it ought also to be accepted for the cheating charge.

Judgment

The Bombay High Court upheld the conviction of the appellant under Section 376 IPC and Section 4 of the POCSO Act. The Court held that the victim’s minority was clearly established through documentary evidence and was not disputed by the defence. Once minority was established, consent was legally immaterial. The Court observed that the defence cross-examination itself indicated the existence of a physical relationship, which was further corroborated by medical evidence.

However, the Court set aside the conviction under Section 420 IPC. It held that acceptance of a witness’s testimony for one offence does not automatically justify acceptance of the same testimony for all alleged offences. Reiterating that the doctrine of falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus has no application in Indian law, the Court emphasised that cheating requires independent and cogent proof. In the absence of documentary evidence, recovery, or examination of key witnesses, the prosecution failed to establish the offence of cheating beyond reasonable doubt.

On sentencing, while the Court noted that the relationship appeared consensual in fact, it clarified that such consent has no legal relevance under POCSO. Considering the absence of prior criminal antecedents, the Court reduced the sentence to the statutory minimum prescribed at the time of the offence.

Written by Adv. Aiswarya Krishnan