Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Sikandar Somsingh Chavhan, was convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Link Court, Mangrulpir, for offences under Section 376(2)(l) of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3, 4, 5(k) and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, for raping a deaf and dumb minor girl. The incident occurred on the night of 18.04.2018 when the victim was sleeping on a cot outside her house while her parents attended a pre-marriage function. The appellant gagged her, took her to a cattle shed, and committed forcible sexual intercourse. The victim, who is deaf and mute, communicated the incident to her mother through gestures the next morning. The father lodged a report on 20.04.2018. The appellant was arrested and charge-sheeted. The trial court convicted him and sentenced him to 10 years' imprisonment and fine. In appeal, the appellant challenged the conviction primarily on the ground that the prosecution failed to prove that the victim was below 18 years of age. The High Court examined the evidence, including the birth certificate (Exh.67) issued by Gram Panchayat, the original birth register entry (Exh.68), and the Anganwadi records (Exh.95) produced by PW8 (Gram Sewak) and PW14 (Anganwadi Sewika). The victim's father (PW6) and mother (PW13) also testified that the victim was born on 02.02.2001. The court found that the documentary evidence, despite minor corrections in names, consistently showed the birth date as 02.02.2001, making the victim below 18 on the date of the offence. The court upheld the conviction and sentence, dismissing the appeal.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Age of Victim - Proof of Age - Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, Sections 3, 4, 5(k), 6; Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 376(2)(l) - The prosecution must prove that the victim was below 18 years at the time of the offence. Documentary evidence such as birth certificate issued by Gram Panchayat and Anganwadi records, corroborated by testimony of parents and officials, is sufficient to establish age. Minor corrections in records do not vitiate the proof if the core entry is reliable. Held that the victim's birth date was 02.02.2001, making her below 18 on the date of incident (Paras 7-10).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that the victim was below 18 years of age on the date of the incident, and whether the conviction under Section 376(2)(l) IPC and Sections 3, 4, 5(k) and 6 of the POCSO Act is sustainable.
Final Decision
Appeal dismissed. The conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court are upheld.
Law Points
- Age of victim in POCSO cases
- Proof of age through documentary evidence
- Reliability of birth certificate and Anganwadi records
- Corroboration of victim testimony
- Sentencing under Section 376(2)(l) IPC and POCSO Act
