Case Note & Summary
The case involves two cross-appeals arising from the conviction of Patiram Gangaram Shelokar for the rape and unnatural offence committed on a 3-year-old girl. The incident occurred on 10 October 2011 when the accused, a relative of the victim's father, took the minor girl to her house while her parents were away. Upon their return, the parents found the accused wearing his pants and the victim bleeding from her private parts. The victim informed her mother that the accused had inserted his private part into her vagina and anus. The trial court convicted the accused under Sections 376(2)(f) and 377 IPC and sentenced him to 10 years rigorous imprisonment with fine. The State appealed for enhancement of sentence, while the accused challenged the conviction. The High Court examined the evidence, including the testimony of the minor victim (PW-3), her parents (PW-1 and PW-2), and medical evidence. The court found the victim's testimony credible and trustworthy, noting that she consistently narrated the incident. The medical evidence corroborated the injuries to the vagina and anus. The court held that the conviction was sustainable and the sentence of 10 years was not inadequate, dismissing both appeals. The court emphasized that the testimony of a minor victim, if reliable, can be the sole basis for conviction without corroboration.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Rape of Minor - Testimony of Victim - Conviction can be based on sole testimony of minor prosecutrix if found credible and trustworthy, corroboration not mandatory - Evidence Act, 1872, Section 134 - Held that the testimony of the 3-year-old victim, though not corroborated, was reliable and sufficient to convict the accused (Paras 5-7). B) Criminal Law - Unnatural Offence - Section 377 IPC - Anal Intercourse - Medical evidence of injuries to anus corroborates charge of carnal intercourse against order of nature - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 377 - Held that the medical evidence of bleeding and injuries to the anus supported the victim's testimony of anal penetration (Paras 8-9). C) Criminal Law - Sentencing - Rape of Minor - Adequacy of Sentence - Sentence of 10 years rigorous imprisonment for rape of a 3-year-old girl is not inadequate; no enhancement warranted - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Section 377 - Held that the sentence imposed by the trial court is just and proper, and the State's appeal for enhancement is dismissed (Paras 10-11).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the accused under Sections 376(2)(f) and 377 IPC is sustainable, and whether the sentence of 10 years rigorous imprisonment requires enhancement.
Final Decision
Both appeals are dismissed. The conviction and sentence of the accused under Sections 376(2)(f) and 377 IPC are confirmed.
Law Points
- Testimony of minor victim
- if credible
- can be sole basis for conviction
- Corroboration not essential in rape cases
- Sentence of 10 years RI for rape of minor is adequate
- Section 377 IPC applies to anal intercourse with minor
