Case Name: AMOL S/O JAYARAM LANDGE V. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
Petition Number: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.98 OF 2022
Neutral Citation: 2026: BHC-AUG: 18109
Date of Judgment: 21.04.2026
Coram:  HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDIPKUMAR C MORE & HON’BLE JUSTICE MR. ABASAHEB D. SHINDE.
Relevant Provisions: Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code [IPC], Section 24 of the Indian Evidence Act, Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, Section 26 of the Indian Evidence Act, Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act [POCSO], and Section 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act.

INTRODUCTION

The primary issue before the Court in this case was whether the trial court could rely upon the confession allegedly made by the accused to a doctor while in custody to sustain his conviction. The Court held that such confessions were inadmissible as evidence in the court of law under Section 26 of the Evidence Act. Upon examining the remaining evidence, particularly the absence of medical proof of penetration, the Court found that offences under Sections 376(2)(i), 376(2)(n) IPC and Section 6 POCSO Act were not established. Consequently, the conviction was altered to Section 8 of the POCSO Act with five years’ rigorous imprisonment.

FACTS
The appeals arose from a judgment convicting the accused for offences under the POCSO Act and the Indian Penal Code relating to kidnapping and repeated sexual assault of a minor girl. The prosecution case was based on a complaint lodged by the victim’s grandmother, with whom the victim resided after the death of her mother. The victim was reported missing, following which the police registered a case and initiated investigation. During the investigation, the victim and the accused were traced together and brought before the police authorities. Based on the victim’s statement alleging sexual relations on the assurance of marriage, additional offences under the IPC and the POCSO Act were invoked.

After completion of investigation, a charge sheet was filed against the accused. The trial court, upon appreciation of the evidence led during trial, convicted the accused for the relevant offences and imposed sentences of imprisonment and fine, directing all sentences to run concurrently. Both the accused and the State subsequently preferred appeals challenging the conviction and adequacy of sentence respectively.

ISSUES
1. Whether the admission/confession made by appellant/accused before the Medical Officer while in police custody, is admissible in evidence to convict him?

2. Whether there was enough material on record to convict the accused under S.376 of the IPC and S.6 of the PCOSO Act, or not?

ARGUMENTS OF THE PARTIES
The accused argued that the prosecution failed to prove rape or aggravated penetrative sexual assault, as medical and scientific evidence did not support allegations of intercourse. Since the victim’s hymen was intact and no corroborative evidence existed, it was contended that only a lesser offence under the POCSO Act was made out.

The State sought enhancement of sentence, contending that amended provisions of the IPC and POCSO Act mandated a minimum punishment of twenty years for offences against minors below sixteen years. It argued that the trial court erred in imposing only ten years’ imprisonment despite the applicable statutory amendments.

JUDGMENT AND ANALYSIS
The Court observed that the Trial Court had sustained the conviction of the accused primarily on the basis of the statement allegedly made by him before the Medical Officer, during medical examination. He had deposed that while giving history, the accused admitted having sexual intercourse with the victim on multiple occasions. The Trial Court treated this disclosure as an admission of guilt and relied upon it to hold that the prosecution had successfully established the offence of penetrative sexual assault.

However, the High Court held that such a statement could not legally be treated as a valid confession or admission. It observed that the alleged statement was not made in the immediate presence of a Magistrate and therefore attracted the bar contained under Section 26 of the Evidence Act. The Court clarified that merely because the statement was made before a doctor and not directly to a police officer did not make it admissible in evidence. Consequently, the Trial Court erred in relying upon the alleged confession for recording conviction under Section 6 of the POCSO Act and the rape provisions of the IPC.

The Court thereafter examined the testimony of the victim alongside the medical evidence. Although the victim consistently alleged that the accused had sexual intercourse with her on more than one occasion, the medical examination conducted by PW-7 revealed no injuries on the body of the victim, no hymenal tear, and no signs suggestive of penetrative sexual intercourse. The doctor further admitted during cross-examination that no signs of intercourse were detected. While recognising that conviction under the POCSO Act can rest solely upon the testimony of the victim if it inspires confidence, the Court held that the medical evidence in the present case created substantial doubt regarding penetrative sexual assault.

At the same time, the Court found that the evidence clearly established that the accused and the victim were in a relationship, were found together, and had physical contact with sexual intent. Since penetration was not proved beyond reasonable doubt, the Court held that offences under Section 6 of the POCSO Act and Sections 376 provisions of the IPC were not established. Nevertheless, the conduct of the accused squarely attracted the definition of “sexual assault” under Section 7 of the POCSO Act. Accordingly, the conviction was altered to one under Section 8 of the POCSO Act and the accused was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for five years along with fine.

CONCLUSION
The judgment reiterated that in the light of  the evidentiary safeguards provided under Sections 25 and 26 of the Evidence Act, a confession made to a doctor while the accused was in police custody was inadmissible unless made before a Magistrate. In absence of reliable proof of penetration, the Court modified the conviction from aggravated penetrative sexual assault to sexual assault under Section 8 POCSO Act.