Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Sandip Hariprasad Pande, was convicted by the Special Judge, Nagpur in Special Child Protection Case No.63/2015 for offences under Section 4 read with Section 3 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act) and Sections 384 and 506 Part-I of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). He was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 10 years under the POCSO Act, 2 years under Section 384 IPC, and 1 year under Section 506 IPC, with fines and default sentences. The sentences were directed to run concurrently. The prosecution case began with an oral report (Exhibit 17) by the victim (PW2), a minor, alleging that the accused, who was her neighbour, had sexual intercourse with her on multiple occasions between June and December 2014, and also extorted money from her by threatening to disclose their relationship. The victim became pregnant and gave birth to a child. The accused was arrested on 11.1.2015. The trial court convicted the accused based on the victim's testimony, medical evidence, and other corroborating circumstances. The accused appealed against the conviction. The High Court examined the evidence and found that the victim's testimony was natural, consistent, and credible. Minor contradictions in her cross-examination did not affect the core of the prosecution case. Medical evidence confirmed that the victim had been subjected to sexual intercourse and had delivered a child. The court also noted that the accused did not cross-examine the victim on the aspect of penetration, and the presumption under Section 29 of the POCSO Act operated against him. Regarding the extortion charge, the court found that the accused had threatened to make the relationship public and demanded money, which the victim paid out of fear. The court upheld the conviction under Section 384 IPC. Similarly, the threat to reputation constituted criminal intimidation under Section 506 IPC. The High Court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the conviction and sentences.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Sexual Assault of Minor - Credibility of Victim's Testimony - Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, Sections 3, 4, 29 - The victim's testimony is sufficient to sustain conviction if found credible and trustworthy; minor contradictions or omissions do not discredit the prosecution case. The court held that the victim's evidence was natural, consistent, and corroborated by medical evidence, and the presumption under Section 29 of the POCSO Act operated against the accused. (Paras 7-10, 12-14) B) Criminal Law - Extortion - Ingredients of Section 384 IPC - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 384 - To constitute extortion, the accused must put the victim in fear of injury and thereby induce delivery of property. The court found that the accused threatened to make the victim's relationship public and demanded money, which amounted to extortion. (Paras 11, 15) C) Criminal Law - Criminal Intimidation - Ingredients of Section 506 IPC - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 506 Part-I - The accused threatened the victim with injury to her reputation, which constitutes criminal intimidation. The court upheld the conviction under this section. (Paras 11, 15)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellant under Section 4 read with Section 3 of the POCSO Act, 2012 and Sections 384 and 506 Part-I of the Indian Penal Code is sustainable based on the evidence on record.
Final Decision
The appeal is dismissed. The conviction and sentences imposed by the learned Special Judge, Nagpur in Special Child Protection Case No.63/2015 are confirmed.
Law Points
- Testimony of victim of sexual assault is sufficient for conviction if credible
- minor contradictions do not discredit
- medical evidence corroborating penetration
- presumption under Section 29 POCSO Act
- Section 384 IPC extortion ingredients
- Section 506 IPC criminal intimidation
