Case Note & Summary
The case involves an appeal by two accused, Sudhir Govindrao Suradkar and Santosh Nathaji Jumbde, against their conviction by the Special Judge (POCSO Act), Aurangabad, for offences under Sections 376(2)(f)(n) read with 34, 506 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Sections 4, 6, and 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO Act). The victim, a minor orphan girl studying in 6th standard, was residing with her maternal uncle and his family. On 07-09-2017, her teacher, PW1 Wankhede, noticed her crying in class and upon enquiry, the victim narrated that the accused persons, who were her relatives, forced her to do household work, kept her starving, made her sleep in the washroom, and when alone, stripped her, touched her private parts, and threatened her not to disclose. The teacher informed the headmaster, PW5 Tapkire, and they lodged a complaint at the police station, leading to the registration of a crime. After investigation, the accused were chargesheeted and tried. The trial court convicted them, leading to the present appeal. The appellants challenged the conviction on grounds that the prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt, there was no independent corroboration, the FIR was based on hearsay, the age of the victim was not proved, medical evidence did not suggest the offence, and there was false implication. The High Court, after hearing arguments, examined the evidence. The court noted that the victim's testimony was consistent and credible, and her statement was corroborated by the teachers who first heard her complaint. The court held that the absence of medical evidence does not disprove sexual assault, and the age of the victim was sufficiently proved by school records. The court found no merit in the appeal and upheld the conviction, dismissing the appeal.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Sexual Assault - Conviction based on victim's testimony - The court held that the testimony of the victim alone, if found credible and trustworthy, is sufficient to sustain a conviction for sexual assault under the POCSO Act and IPC, even in the absence of medical evidence or independent corroboration. (Paras 1-20) B) Evidence Act - Age of Victim - Proof by School Records - The court held that the age of the victim can be proved by school admission records and birth certificates, and the prosecution had sufficiently established that the victim was a minor at the time of the offence. (Paras 10-15) C) Criminal Procedure - FIR based on Hearsay - The court held that an FIR based on hearsay information is admissible if the victim's statement is subsequently recorded and the informant is a credible witness, such as a teacher who first heard the victim's complaint. (Paras 5-8) D) Medical Jurisprudence - Absence of Medical Evidence - The court held that the absence of medical evidence corroborating sexual assault does not disprove the offence, especially when the victim's testimony is consistent and reliable, and the nature of assault may not leave physical marks. (Paras 16-18)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellants under Sections 376(2)(f)(n) r/w 34, 506 r/w 34 IPC and Sections 4, 6, 8 of POCSO Act is sustainable based on the evidence on record.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction of the appellants under Sections 376(2)(f)(n) r/w 34, 506 r/w 34 IPC and Sections 4, 6, 8 of POCSO Act.
Law Points
- Testimony of victim alone can sustain conviction under POCSO Act if found credible
- Absence of medical evidence does not disprove sexual assault
- Age of victim can be proved by school records
- FIR based on hearsay is admissible if victim's statement is recorded
- Conviction under Section 376(2)(f)(n) IPC requires proof of repeated sexual assault by person in position of trust
