Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Pramod Dattatraya Jadhav, was convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Nashik for offences under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act) for raping a 15-year-old girl on 23 December 2013. The victim, a school student in 9th standard, resided with her family in Dindori, Nashik. The appellant was a neighbour known to the family. On the day of the incident, the victim was alone at home when the appellant entered her house, gagged her, and committed rape. The victim reported the incident to her mother upon her return, and a complaint was lodged at Dindori Police Station. The trial court sentenced the appellant to 10 years rigorous imprisonment under Section 376 IPC and 7 years under Section 4 POCSO Act, with fines and default sentences, to run concurrently. The appellant challenged the conviction on grounds that the victim's testimony was unreliable due to contradictions and that the age of the victim was not properly proved. The High Court examined the evidence, including the testimony of the victim (PW-2), her father (PW-1), the medical officer (PW-4), and the investigating officer (PW-5). The court found the victim's testimony to be natural, consistent, and credible, noting that minor contradictions regarding the time of the incident and the presence of other family members did not undermine the core case. The age of the victim was proved through her birth certificate (Exhibit 28) and school leaving certificate (Exhibit 29), establishing she was born on 28 October 1999 and was about 15 years old at the time of the offence, thus a 'child' under the POCSO Act. The medical evidence corroborated the sexual assault. The High Court held that the trial court's findings were based on proper appreciation of evidence and that the conviction was sustainable. The appeal was dismissed, and the sentences were upheld.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Rape of Minor - Testimony of Child Victim - The sole testimony of a child victim, if found credible and trustworthy, is sufficient to base a conviction for rape without requiring corroboration - The court held that the evidence of the victim (PW-2) was natural, consistent, and reliable, and minor contradictions did not affect the core of the prosecution case (Paras 10-15). B) Evidence Act - Age of Victim - Proof by School Records - The age of the victim can be proved by the school leaving certificate or birth certificate issued by the municipal authorities - In this case, the birth certificate (Exhibit 28) and school record (Exhibit 29) established that the victim was born on 28/10/1999 and was about 15 years old on the date of incident, thus a 'child' under the POCSO Act (Paras 5-6). C) Criminal Law - POCSO Act - Conviction under Both IPC and POCSO - An accused can be convicted under both Section 376 IPC and Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 for the same act of penetrative sexual assault on a minor - The court upheld the concurrent sentences, noting that the offences are distinct and the POCSO Act provides additional protection to children (Paras 16-18).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellant under Section 376 IPC and Section 4 POCSO Act is sustainable based on the testimony of the minor victim and other evidence
Final Decision
The appeal is dismissed. The conviction and sentence passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nashik on 16/02/2015 are upheld.
Law Points
- Testimony of child victim
- if credible
- can sustain conviction without corroboration
- Minor contradictions in evidence do not discredit prosecution case
- Age of victim can be proved by school records and birth certificate
- Conviction under both Section 376 IPC and Section 4 POCSO Act is permissible for same act
