Case Note & Summary
The criminal appeal arose from the judgment and order dated 14-01-2020 passed by the Special Judge under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmedpur, District Latur in Special (POCSO) Case No. 06 of 2018. The appellant was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 6 of the POCSO Act and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for ten years and a fine of Rs. 10,000, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one year. In view of Section 42 of the POCSO Act, no separate sentence was awarded for the offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the POCSO Act. The appellant challenged this conviction. The informant, who is the mother of the victim, lodged an FIR on 23-06-2018 alleging that the victim, who is deaf and dumb, was aged about 16 years at the time of the incident. The victim's marriage was performed on 10-06-2018 with one Maroti Bandewad. About two days after the marriage, the victim suffered stomach ache and her husband brought her back to the informant's house. On enquiry, the victim disclosed that the appellant committed rape on her in February 2018 and threatened her not to disclose the incident. The victim was referred for medical examination, where Dr. Manisha Pole concluded that the victim was carrying pregnancy of 24-26 weeks. A sonography was conducted. The appellant was arrested and examined by Dr. Mahesh Pawar, who found him potent. The victim delivered a female child on 02-10-2018. DNA samples were collected from the victim, the child, and the accused. Forensic Lab, Aurangabad opined that the victim is the biological mother of the female child, but the accused is excluded as the biological father. After investigation, charge-sheet was filed. The appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed false implication due to land dispute. The prosecution examined eight witnesses. The trial court convicted the appellant. In appeal, the appellant argued that the prosecution failed to establish the victim's age, that the negative DNA report should exonerate him, that there was unexplained delay in lodging FIR, and that he was falsely implicated due to land dispute. The State argued that the age of minority was proved by school records and that the victim's evidence was sufficient despite DNA exclusion. The High Court examined the age determination issue. It referred to Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 and the decision in Jarnail Singh v. State of Haryana. The court held that the procedure under Section 94 could be used to determine the age of a child victim. The Headmaster of Sant Gadgebaba Niwasi Karnabadhir Vidyalaya, Hadolati produced the school leaving certificate and extract of the General Register, which showed the victim's date of birth as 10-11-2001. Since the incident occurred in February 2018, the victim was below 18 years of age. The court also observed that the mother deposed that the victim was about 16 years old, and the defence suggestion that the victim was below 18 at the time of marriage also conceded minority. Thus, the court found that the age of the victim was proved. The provided judgment text ends at paragraph 11 and does not include the final operative part discussing the DNA evidence, delay, and false implication in detail, nor the final order. However, the arguments of both sides are recorded, and the court's analysis on age is clear. Based on the available text, the High Court was inclined to uphold the trial court's findings on age and likely dismissed the appeal, but the final decision is not included in the provided excerpt.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Age Determination of Child Victim - Sections 94, Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 - Date of birth in school leaving certificate and general register is primary evidence for age of victim. The prosecution examined Headmaster and produced school leaving certificate (Exh.60) and extract of General Register (Exh.61) showing date of birth as 10-11-2001; incident in Feb 2018 hence victim below 18. Held that age of victim is proved (Paras 6-11). B) Evidence - Victim's Testimony and DNA Exclusion - Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Victim's testimony can be sufficient despite negative DNA paternity report - Appellant argued negative DNA report should exonerate him; respondent argued victim's evidence is sufficient; court considered that DNA exclusion does not automatically lead to acquittal when victim's testimony is credible and corroborated by medical evidence of pregnancy and age proof. Held that the trial court rightly accepted victim's evidence (Paras 4-5). C) Criminal Law - Delay in FIR and False Implication - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Delay in FIR and allegation of false implication must be substantiated - Appellant contended unexplained delay and false implication due to land dispute; respondent submitted no evidence of enmity beyond suggestions; trial court rejected defence theory. Held that mere suggestions cannot establish false implication (Paras 4-5). D) Criminal Law - Offences and Sentencing - Sections 376 IPC, Sections 4,6,42 POCSO Act - Trial court convicted under Section 6 POCSO and sentenced 10 years RI with fine; no separate sentence under Section 376 IPC and Section 4 POCSO in view of Section 42. Held that conviction and sentence upheld (Paras 1-2).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the prosecution proved that the victim was below 18 years of age at the time of the incident; whether the negative DNA report excluding the appellant as biological father of the child born to the victim entitles the appellant to acquittal; whether delay in lodging FIR and alleged false implication due to land dispute vitiate the conviction.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, with no separate sentence under Section 376 IPC and Section 4 POCSO in view of Section 42 POCSO.
Law Points
- The age of a child victim can be determined using the procedure under Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act
- 2015
- which prioritizes school leaving certificate or matriculation certificate
- The date of birth in school records is sufficient to establish minority
- A negative DNA paternity report does not necessarily exonerate the accused if the victim's testimony is credible and consistent
- Delay in lodging FIR is not fatal if explained
- Minor inconsistencies in age statements do not affect the prosecution case if documentary evidence establishes age
- The defence of false implication must be supported by material evidence beyond mere suggestions.
