Sanchayita Lahkar

The Bombay High Court Single Bench of Justice R.M. Joshi dismissed a convict’s appeal and upheld his conviction and sentence for offences involving the sexual assault of a minor. The Court held that, in prosecutions under the POCSO Act, an accused cannot be acquitted solely because the medical officer does not express an opinion on whether sexual assault occurred or notes no injuries on the child. The appellant had relied on the absence of such medical opinion to seek acquittal, but the Court found the evidence on record sufficient to sustain the conviction.

The appeal arose from a judgment convicting the appellant for offences punishable under Section 376(2)(i) and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 6 and 10 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. The prosecution case began with a report lodged by the mother of the minor victim at Ghatkopar Police Station, stating that her daughter disclosed sexual assault by a neighbour who allegedly lured her to his residence on the pretext of giving food articles. Investigation included recording statements under Sections 161 and 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, medical examination of the victim, spot panchanama, seizure of clothes, and forensic analysis.

Also Read: Validly Established Lease Cannot Be Diluted Or Recharacterised Through Parties' Post-Execution Conduct When Deed Terms Are Clear And Unambiguous: Supreme Court

The prosecution examined seven witnesses, including the victim, her parents, an independent neighbour, and the medical officer. Documentary evidence comprised the FIR, medical report, seizure panchanamas, and CA reports. The defence contended that the victim’s testimony lacked consistency, that no injuries were found during medical examination, and that there were contradictions and possible motives for false implication. The prosecution maintained that the victim was a minor, her testimony was consistent, and medical findings supported the allegation.

The Court observed, “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.” It further recorded, “No doubt if the other evidence on record or overall circumstances brought before the court create any doubt with regard to the occurrence of the incident as claimed by the victim, the Court in such case would be on guard and search for any corroborative evidence.”

With respect to the victim’s age, the Court stated, “The prosecution thus by leading cogent evidence has substantiated the fact that the victim was minor and hence rightly invoked the provisions of POCSO Act.” It noted that the victim’s inability to specify the exact date did not dilute her account, observing, “However, she specifically narrates the manner in which the incident had occurred.” The Court recorded that her testimony was supported by PW-5 and that, “The said evidence of the victim does not get affected by the cross examination.”

On the defence suggestions regarding false implication, the Court stated, “It is thus, clear that the defence is suggesting different reasons for his alleged false implication to the 4 witnesses of the prosecution and there is no substance in the said defence.”

Addressing medical evidence, the Court observed, “There is no reason other than the sexual assault for causing of the same redness.” It further recorded, “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.”

Regarding statutory presumption, the Court stated, “Once the prosecution proves the core and fundamental facts which lead to the proof of the act of commission of offence, presumption can be raised in view of Section 29 of the Act and it is for the accused to rebut the same.” It concluded that, “Here in this case accused has failed to rebut the said presumption either by way of cross-examination of witnesses of prosecution of leading other evidence.”

Also Read: Mumbai Fire Brigade Department Integral To MCGM, Forms Part Of Same Industrial Establishment Under Standing Orders Act: Bombay High Court

The Court recorded, “Consequently, this Court finds no reason to cause interference in the interim judgment and order of conviction. In view of the aforesaid facts, there is no merit in the appeal and the appeal stands dismissed.”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioners:  Mr. Akshay Dingale

For the Respondents: Mr. Ashok Gawai, APP for the State; Ms. Gunjan Thakkar

Case Title: Pradip Prakash Baikar v. The State of Maharashtra and Anr.
Neutral Citation: 2026: BHC-AS:9712
Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. 728 of 2022
Bench: Justice R.M. Joshi