Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Deepak Nanku Singh, was convicted by the Children's Court, Panaji for the offence punishable under Section 8(2) of the Goa Children's Act, 2003 read with Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and sentenced to 10 years simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2,00,000. The case arose from an FIR lodged on 23.3.2008 by PW-2 Sunita Moolya, mother of the victim, alleging that the accused had kidnapped her minor daughter. Investigation revealed that the accused took the minor girl to Poona and between 18.3.2008 and 21.6.2008 had forcible sexual intercourse with her on multiple occasions. The accused was charged under Section 363 IPC and Section 8(2) of the Act, but the Children's Court discharged him under Section 363 IPC relying on precedents. The charge was framed under Section 8(2) read with Section 376 IPC. The prosecution examined five witnesses including the victim (PW-3), her mother (PW-2), two doctors (PW-1 and PW-4), and the investigating officer (PW-5). The accused denied the allegations in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The High Court upheld the conviction, finding the victim's testimony credible and reliable, and that the delay in FIR was satisfactorily explained. The court also noted that the victim's age was proved by medical evidence as 15-16 years, confirming she was a minor. The appeal was dismissed.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Rape of Minor - Sufficiency of Victim's Testimony - The testimony of the prosecutrix alone, if found credible and reliable, is sufficient to base a conviction for rape without corroboration - The court held that the evidence of PW-3 (victim) was trustworthy and consistent, and thus the conviction was sustainable (Paras 7-10). B) Criminal Procedure - Delay in FIR - Explanation - Delay in lodging FIR is not fatal if a satisfactory explanation is given - The court accepted the explanation that the victim's mother (PW-2) was illiterate and the victim was under threat, thus delay was condoned (Paras 11-12). C) Evidence Act - Age of Victim - Proof by Medical Evidence - The age of the victim can be proved by medical evidence such as ossification test - The court relied on the evidence of PW-1 (doctor) who opined the victim's age as 15-16 years, confirming minority (Paras 5-6).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellant under Section 8(2) of the Goa Children's Act, 2003 read with Section 376 IPC is sustainable on the basis of the evidence on record.
Final Decision
The appeal is dismissed. The conviction and sentence imposed by the Children's Court are upheld.
Law Points
- Testimony of victim alone sufficient for conviction if credible
- Delay in FIR not fatal if explained
- Age of victim can be proved by medical evidence
- Section 8(2) Goa Children's Act read with Section 376 IPC
