Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Suresh Angloswami Naidu, was convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge and Special Judge under the POCSO Act, Ichalkaranji, for offences under Sections 363 and 366 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 5(l) punishable under Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO Act). The prosecutrix, aged about 13-14 years, was kidnapped on 4th July 2013 and subjected to aggravated penetrative sexual assault. The appellant was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 10 years under the POCSO Act, with concurrent sentences for the IPC offences. The co-accused, Kiran Mahadev Mokashi, was acquitted. The appellant challenged the conviction on the ground that the prosecutrix's testimony was unreliable and that the medical evidence did not support the case. The High Court, after hearing the parties and perusing the record, held that the prosecutrix's testimony was credible and corroborated by medical evidence. The Court noted that the appellant failed to explain the victim's presence in his custody, which raised an adverse inference under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act. The Court upheld the conviction and found no reason to interfere with the sentence. The appeal was dismissed.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Kidnapping and Sexual Assault - Sections 363, 366 IPC and Section 5(l) r/w Section 6 POCSO Act - Credibility of Prosecutrix - The prosecutrix, a minor aged 13-14 years, was kidnapped and subjected to aggravated penetrative sexual assault. The Court held that the testimony of the prosecutrix was trustworthy and corroborated by medical evidence, and the appellant's failure to explain the victim's presence in his custody raised an adverse inference under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act. The conviction was upheld. (Paras 3-10) B) Criminal Law - Sentencing - Concurrent Sentences - The Trial Court had directed all substantive sentences to run concurrently. The High Court did not interfere with the sentence, noting that the appellant was already undergoing the sentence. (Para 1)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellant under Sections 363, 366 of IPC and Section 5(l) punishable under Section 6 of POCSO Act is sustainable based on the evidence on record.
Final Decision
The appeal is dismissed. The conviction and sentence of the appellant under Sections 363, 366 IPC and Section 5(l) punishable under Section 6 of POCSO Act are upheld.
Law Points
- Credibility of prosecutrix in sexual offences
- Corroboration of testimony by medical evidence
- Adverse inference under Section 106 of Indian Evidence Act
- Applicability of POCSO Act for minor victims
- Concurrent running of sentences
