The Bombay High Court has held that an accused cannot be acquitted under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act merely because the medical officer has not expressly recorded an opinion confirming sexual assault.
Justice Ravindra Joshi delivered the ruling on February 25 while dismissing an appeal filed by Pradeep Prakash Baiker. The Court upheld his conviction under Section 376(2)(i) of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 6 and 10 of the POCSO Act. A special court had convicted Baiker on June 7, 2022.
Medical Opinion Not Conclusive by Itself
Before the High Court, the appellant argued that the medical officer who testified at trial did not give any opinion confirming sexual assault. He also contended that the officer did not note any injuries on the victim’s body.
Rejecting the submission, Justice Joshi referred to the medical certificate on record. The certificate recorded “redness” on the victim’s private part. The Court found no plausible explanation for such redness other than sexual assault.
The Court held that the absence of a specific medical opinion did not weaken the prosecution case.
“There is no reason other than the sexual assault for causing of the same redness. In such circumstances, merely because there is no opinion expressed by the Medical Officer with regard to the sexual assault, the case does not become fit for acquittal of the accused,” the Court observed.
The Court added that medical testimony is, in any event, an opinion and must be assessed along with other evidence.
Evidence Found Consistent and Corroborated
Justice Joshi held that the evidence on record supported the prosecution version. The Court noted that the victim’s testimony remained consistent throughout the trial. Her statement also matched her earlier version of events.
The Court further found that an independent witness and medical material corroborated the victim’s account. It rejected the appellant’s plea of false implication, noting that he had led no evidence to support such a defence.
Weight to Child Victim’s Testimony Under POCSO
The Court emphasised that courts must give due weight to the testimony of a child victim in cases under the POCSO Act. At the same time, it clarified that courts must remain cautious where surrounding circumstances raise doubt.
“In case of offence against a child under POCSO Act, the Court is required to give due weightage to the evidence of the child, who is the victim of sexual assault,” Justice Joshi said.
The Court added that where circumstances create doubt, courts must look for corroborative material.
Defence of Enmity and False Implication Rejected
The High Court also examined the defence argument that the case arose from enmity with the victim’s family. The defence claimed disputes with the victim’s mother had led to false implication.
Justice Joshi noted that the defence suggested different and inconsistent reasons for alleged false implication to multiple prosecution witnesses.
“It is thus clear that the defence is suggesting different reasons for his alleged false implication to the four witnesses of the prosecution and there is no substance in the said defence,” the Court held.
Prosecution Case
According to the prosecution, Baiker, a neighbour of the minor victim, called her to his house on August 22, 2013, on the pretext of giving her food items. When the child went to his house, he allegedly forcibly removed her clothes and committed sexual intercourse.
The victim did not disclose the incident immediately. On August 26, 2013, she complained of stomach pain and then narrated the incident to her mother. The police registered a complaint the same day. Authorities arrested Baiker and later secured his conviction.
High Court’s Conclusion
Finding the victim’s testimony reliable and confidence-inspiring, the High Court declined to interfere with the special court’s findings. It dismissed Baiker’s appeal.
Appearance
- Advocate Akshay Dingale for the Appellant
- Additional Public Prosecutor Ashok Gawai for the State
- Legal Aid Counsel Gunjan Thakkar for the Victim
Case Title: Pradeep Prakash Baiker v State of Maharashtra
