Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Mohammed Gaus Ibrahim Shaikh, was convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay, for the offence of rape under Section 376(2)(f) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and sentenced to ten years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500. The prosecution case was that on 23 April 1995, at about 9:30 p.m., the complainant Suman Jadhav (PW-2) left her house to see off her mother, leaving her four-year-old daughter (the prosecutrix, PW-3) playing outside. The accused, known as 'Mohd. Mama' in the locality, was alone at his house. When Suman returned around 10:00 p.m., the prosecutrix also returned from the accused's house. Shortly after, the girl complained of difficulty in passing urine and told her mother 'see what Mohd. Mama has done.' On examination, Suman found blood near the child's private parts. The child disclosed that the accused made her sit on his lap and said he would do 'Bula Bula.' Suman and her husband went to confront the accused, but he fled. They lodged a report at Kherwadi Police Station. The child was examined at Nagpada Police Hospital, Bhabha Hospital, and J.J. Hospital. The accused was arrested and medically examined. The trial court convicted the accused. In appeal, the appellant's counsel argued that the prosecution failed to prove penetration, and at most, the accused was guilty of attempt to commit rape. The High Court examined the evidence of PW-2 (mother), PW-3 (victim), and the medical officer. The medical evidence showed that the hymen was torn and there was redness and tenderness around the vaginal introitus, indicating penetration. The court held that even slight penetration is sufficient to constitute rape under Section 375 IPC. The victim's testimony, though a child, was consistent and corroborated by medical evidence. The court found no reason to disbelieve the prosecution case and upheld the conviction and sentence. The appeal was dismissed.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Rape - Penetration - Section 376(2)(f) IPC - The issue was whether the prosecution proved penetration for the offence of rape. The court held that even slight penetration is sufficient to constitute rape, and the medical evidence showing injuries to the hymen and vaginal introitus corroborated the victim's testimony, establishing penetration. (Paras 6-10) B) Evidence Law - Child Witness - Testimony of Prosecutrix - The court relied on the testimony of the four-year-old victim, which was consistent with the medical evidence and the mother's testimony, to hold that the accused committed rape. (Paras 6-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the prosecution proved penetration to establish the offence of rape under Section 376 IPC, or whether the offence was only an attempt to commit rape.
Final Decision
The appeal is dismissed. The conviction and sentence under Section 376(2)(f) IPC are upheld.
Law Points
- Penetration is essential for rape
- but slight penetration is sufficient
- Medical evidence corroborating penetration can sustain conviction under Section 376 IPC
