Case Note & Summary
The appeal arose from the conviction of the appellant in Sessions Case No. 35 of 1999 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Biloli, for the offence under Section 376(2)(f) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The appellant was sentenced to life imprisonment and a fine of ₹1,000. The case involved the alleged rape of a four-year-old girl at Degloor, District Nanded. On 13.02.1999, the victim, aged about four years, went to the house of her friend Reshma, the daughter of the appellant, to play. Around 4:00 p.m., she returned home crying. She told her mother, Yusufabegum, that the appellant, wearing a lungi, gave her a sweet called 'Banaras', made her lie on a cot, sat on her abdomen and inserted his private part into her place of urine. The mother noticed swelling and sticky stains. Due to the father's absence, she waited until next morning, informed neighbours and community members, and then lodged F.I.R. Exh.16 at Degloor Police Station. Crime No. 15 of 1999 was registered under Section 376(2)(f) IPC. Investigation followed and a charge sheet was filed. The core legal issues were whether the prosecution proved the offence under Section 376(2)(f) beyond reasonable doubt, whether the testimony of the child victim was reliable and sufficient for conviction, whether omission to record statement under Section 161 CrPC and absence of semen/injuries on the accused weakened the prosecution case, and whether the offence, if any, fell under Section 354 IPC. The appellant contended that the F.I.R. was based solely on the statement of a child incapable of giving details, that the victim did not specify what was inserted, that the hymen rupture could have other causes, that no semen or blood was found, that no injuries were on the accused, and that the victim appeared tutored. He alternatively argued for Section 354 IPC. The State supported the conviction, relying on the victim's testimony corroborated by her mother and medical evidence, and cited precedent that the sole testimony of a rape victim can suffice. The High Court, per Sandipkumar C. More, J., observed that P.W.1 (mother) remained unshaken in cross-examination, and her conduct in not immediately reporting was explained by the father's absence. The defence of false implication due to refusal of road metal was considered improbable. The victim's deposition indicated she had gone to buy sweets and that the appellant removed his pant, wore a lungi, made her lie down, slept on her abdomen and pressed her private part, causing extreme pain. Although the victim could not name the object due to her tender age, the court inferred, in light of the mother's account and the victim's complaint of extreme pain, that the appellant inserted his penis. The court also noted that non-recording of statement under Section 161 CrPC does not preclude examining a witness. The medical evidence of P.W.6 Dr. Manisha Jadhav, that the hymen was torn and forceful sexual intercourse occurred, supported the prosecution. The provided text ends during the court's analysis of the victim's tender age and inability to describe details, before any final operative conclusion was included. Therefore, the final decision cannot be stated from the available text.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Rape of Minor - Section 376(2)(f) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Evidentiary Sufficiency - The court examined whether the prosecution proved aggravated penetrative sexual assault on a four-year-old victim. It considered the victim's deposition that the accused removed his pant, wore a lungi, made her lie on a cot, slept on her abdomen and pressed her private part causing extreme pain, along with mother's account that the accused inserted his private part into the victim's private part. Held that the inference of penile insertion could be drawn despite the child's inability to name the object, supporting the charge under Section 376(2)(f) (Paras 10-11). B) Criminal Law - Child Witness Testimony - Section 161 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Omission to Record Statement - The appellant argued that the Investigating Officer had not recorded the victim's statement under Section 161 CrPC. The court observed that recording a statement under Section 161 CrPC is not a legal precondition for examining a witness necessary to prove the prosecution case. Held that such omission, by itself, did not render the evidence inadmissible or the trial vitiated (Para 7). C) Criminal Law - Appreciation of Evidence - False Implication Defence - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 376(2)(f) - The defence alleged false implication due to refusal to give road metal to parents of the victim. The court considered whether this defence was probable. Held that nobody would put the future of their own child at stake on such a flimsy ground, making the defence highly unconvincing and strengthening the credibility of the prosecution witnesses (Para 9). D) Criminal Law - Medical Evidence - Hymen Rupture and Absence of Semen/Blood - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 376(2)(f) - The court noted the defence arguments regarding absence of semen, blood, and injuries on the accused. It proceeded to rely on the victim's testimony and the medical opinion of P.W.6 Dr. Manisha Jadhav, who found torn hymen and opined forceful sexual intercourse. Held that such absence of biological evidence did not outweigh credible direct evidence of penetration (Paras 4, 10-11).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the prosecution established the offence under Section 376(2)(f) of Indian Penal Code, 1860 against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt, particularly based on the testimony of a four-year-old victim and corroborative medical evidence; and whether the alternative offence under Section 354 IPC was made out.
Law Points
- Testimony of a child victim
- if credible
- can establish rape despite inability to identify the object inserted
- Corroboration from mother and medical evidence strengthens prosecution case
- Omission to record statement under Section 161 CrPC does not bar examining a necessary witness
- Defence of false implication on flimsy grounds is improbable
- Absence of semen or blood does not necessarily disprove penetration
