Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Ganpat son of Sadashiv Nadekar, was convicted by the learned Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge-4, Nagpur in Sessions Trial No. 299 of 2007 for offences under Sections 366, 376(1)(f), 354, and 506(II) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). He was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 7 years under Section 366 IPC, 10 years under Section 376(1)(f) IPC, 1 year under Section 354 IPC, and 1 year under Section 506(II) IPC, with fines and default sentences. All substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently. The appellant challenged the legality and validity of his conviction in the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench. The prosecution case was based on an FIR No. 34/07 lodged at Jalalkheda Police Station on 5.5.2007, alleging that the appellant kidnapped and raped a minor girl aged about 10-12 years. The prosecutrix testified that the appellant took her away from her house, removed her clothes, and raped her. She also stated that the appellant threatened her with dire consequences if she disclosed the incident. The medical evidence, including the ossification test, confirmed that the prosecutrix was below 12 years of age. The appellant's clothes were seized and sent for chemical analysis, which revealed the presence of semen. The trial court convicted the appellant based on the credible testimony of the prosecutrix, corroborated by medical and circumstantial evidence. The High Court, after hearing arguments from both sides, held that the prosecution had proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. The court found that the testimony of the prosecutrix was trustworthy and inspired confidence. The medical evidence corroborated the fact of rape and the age of the victim. The court also noted that the appellant had threatened the prosecutrix, which constituted criminal intimidation. The High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction and sentences imposed by the trial court.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Rape - Conviction on Sole Testimony of Prosecutrix - The conviction for rape can be based on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix if it is found to be credible, trustworthy, and inspires confidence. In this case, the testimony of the prosecutrix was corroborated by medical evidence and other circumstances. (Paras 5-7) B) Criminal Law - Kidnapping - Section 366 IPC - The prosecution must prove that the accused took or enticed the minor girl from the lawful guardianship of her parents without their consent. The evidence showed that the appellant took the prosecutrix away from her house and kept her in his custody, which amounts to kidnapping. (Paras 3-4) C) Criminal Law - Age of Victim - Proof by Medical Evidence - The age of the prosecutrix was determined by ossification test and medical opinion, which placed her between 10 to 12 years. The court accepted this evidence to hold that she was a minor below 12 years, attracting Section 376(1)(f) IPC. (Para 6) D) Criminal Law - Outraging Modesty - Section 354 IPC - The act of the appellant in removing the clothes of the prosecutrix and attempting to rape her constitutes an offence under Section 354 IPC. (Para 8) E) Criminal Law - Criminal Intimidation - Section 506(II) IPC - The appellant threatened the prosecutrix with dire consequences if she disclosed the incident, which amounts to criminal intimidation. (Para 9)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellant under Sections 366, 376(1)(f), 354, and 506(II) IPC is sustainable on the basis of the evidence on record
Final Decision
Appeal dismissed. Conviction and sentences imposed by the trial court are upheld.
Law Points
- Rape conviction can be based on sole testimony of prosecutrix if found credible
- Corroboration not essential but available in this case
- Minor's age can be proved by medical evidence
- Section 366 IPC requires kidnapping from lawful guardianship
- Section 376(1)(f) IPC applies for rape of minor below 12 years
