In a significant ruling, the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court has acquitted Rahul Gautam Lahase, accused of rape, sexual assault under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, and transmitting obscene material, citing inconsistencies in the prosecution’s evidence and raising doubts about the credibility of the victim’s account.
Background of the Case:
Rahul Gautam Lahase, a 26-year-old labourer from Jalgaon, was accused of sexually assaulting a 12th-grade student and circulating obscene photographs of her on social media. The incident allegedly occurred in March 2017, after Lahase befriended the victim on Facebook. According to the prosecution, Lahase persuaded the victim to meet him at Vrundavan Hotel in Anjangaon Surji, where he coerced her into a sexual relationship by threatening to release compromising photographs.
The victim alleged that Lahase took her photographs without her knowledge and later uploaded them on Facebook, tagging her friends and relatives. An FIR was lodged on October 17, 2017, about seven months after the alleged incident, leading to Lahase’s arrest. The Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 2, Achalpur, had initially convicted him under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), Sections 4 and 8 of the POCSO Act, and Section 67 of the Information Technology (IT) Act, 2000, sentencing him to ten years of rigorous imprisonment.
Key Legal Issues Addressed:
1. Delay in Filing the FIR: The defence argued that the seven-month delay in lodging the FIR raised serious doubts about the credibility of the allegations. The defence contended that the delay was inadequately explained and suggested that it was a deliberate exaggeration to damage the accused’s reputation.
2. Lack of Scientific Evidence: A critical point raised by the defence was the absence of the Regional Forensic Science Laboratory (RFSL) report, which was expected to confirm whether the alleged obscene photographs were actually transmitted or published online. The defence argued that, without this scientific evidence, the prosecution’s case was incomplete.
3. Credibility of Witness Testimonies: The defence pointed out inconsistencies in the testimonies of the victim, her father, and her fiancé, Ashish. The defence noted that their accounts lacked crucial details, such as the exact dates and circumstances of the alleged assault, and argued that the conduct of the victim was not typical of someone in her situation.
4. Age of the Victim: The age of the victim was a central issue because it determined the applicability of the POCSO Act. While the prosecution provided a birth certificate to establish the victim’s age as a minor, the defence argued that discrepancies in the evidence weakened the claim that the victim was under 18 at the time of the incident.
Observations and Decision of the Court:
Justice G. A. Sanap, presiding over the case, acquitted Rahul Gautam Lahase, finding significant gaps in the prosecution’s case. The court questioned the plausibility of the victim’s account, especially regarding her decision to meet an unknown person at a hotel and accompany him to a private room.
Justice Sanap observed:
“No prudent girl would go to a hotel room on a first meeting with an unknown boy. The conduct of the victim is not consistent with the behaviour of a person of ordinary prudence placed in similar circumstances.”
The court emphasized that the victim’s behaviour raised doubts about the credibility of her testimony. The judge found it unlikely that a young girl with no prior acquaintance with the accused would agree to meet him alone in a secluded location without seeking help or expressing concern.
The court also addressed the lack of scientific evidence to substantiate the charge under Section 67 of the IT Act. Justice Sanap noted:
“Without a forensic analysis to establish that any obscene material was transmitted or published, the conviction under Section 67 of the IT Act cannot be sustained.”
The judge further observed that the delay in lodging the FIR had not been satisfactorily explained. He pointed out that the parents and victim had ample opportunity to report the matter earlier if the allegations were true, but they failed to do so.
Outcome of the Appeal:
Concluding that the prosecution had failed to prove the charges beyond a reasonable doubt, the court acquitted Lahase of all charges. Justice Sanap stated:
“The prosecution’s case is filled with inconsistencies and lacks corroborative evidence. The conduct of the victim is implausible, and the delay in lodging the FIR is not satisfactorily explained. The accused is entitled to the benefit of the doubt.”
The court ordered Lahase’s immediate release if he was not required in any other case. Additionally, it directed that Mrs. Smita P. Deshpande, the appointed advocate for the victim, be compensated by the High Court Legal Services Sub Committee.
Representation and Case Details:
– Appellant: Rahul Gautam Lahase, represented by Mr. Mir Nagman Ali and Ms. Gulfashan Ansari, Advocates.
– Respondents:
– 1) State of Maharashtra, represented by Mr. H. D. Futane, Additional Public Prosecutor.
– 2) XYZ (Victim), represented by Mrs. Smita P. Deshpande, Advocate.
– Case Title: Rahul Gautam Lahase vs. State of Maharashtra
– Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. 84 of 2022
– Bench: Justice G. A. Sanap
