Case Note & Summary
The High Court of Bombay considered a criminal revision application against the concurrent judgments of the trial court and the sessions court convicting the accused under Sections 377 and 387 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The victim was a 32-year-old man suffering from mild mental retardation with an IQ of 55 and a mental age of approximately 8 years. On the evening of 24 June 2012, the accused called the victim to his office, where he committed unnatural sexual intercourse upon him. Subsequently, the accused took the victim to meet his brother and indicated that the victim should also allow the brother to engage in similar acts, which the victim refused. Upon returning home, the victim disclosed the incident to his mother, who observed injuries on his private parts. The parents immediately reported the matter to the police and the victim was medically examined; the doctor noted injuries on the victim’s penis and anus consistent with forceful anal intercourse. The accused was tried before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, who, after examining nine witnesses, convicted him and sentenced him to seven years’ rigorous imprisonment and a fine. The appeal to the Sessions Court was dismissed, affirming the conviction and sentence. Before the High Court, the accused contended that the evidence was discrepant, that no injuries were found on his person, and that the case was concocted. Alternatively, he sought leniency on the ground that he had already served four and a half years. The State defended the conviction, highlighting the consistency of the victim’s account with those of his parents and the medical evidence. The High Court upheld the concurrent findings, noting that the trial court had carefully assessed the victim’s mental condition and that his deposition, though limited by his mental age, was credible and narratively coherent. The medical evidence provided robust corroboration. The court held that no interference was warranted under revisional jurisdiction. On the question of leniency, the court emphasised the gravity of the offence, the victim’s particular vulnerability due to his mental condition, and the accused’s subsequent conduct of attempting to introduce the victim to his brother for further abuse, finding no mitigating circumstances to reduce the sentence. Consequently, the revision application was dismissed and the conviction and sentence confirmed.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Unnatural Offences - Section 377 Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Evidence of Victim with Mental Retardation - The trial court accepted the testimony of a 32-year-old victim with mild mental retardation (IQ 55, mental age 8 years) who described the forceful anal intercourse; his evidence was found consistent with medical injuries and the prompt disclosure to his parents - Held that the conviction based on such credible evidence does not require interference, and the concurrent findings of the lower courts are proper (Paras 5-8). B) Criminal Law - Extortion - Section 387 Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Concurrent Conviction - Not specifically challenged on facts, but conviction under Section 387 read with 34 IPC was upheld as part of the same set of facts; the revision court found no ground to disturb the concurrent findings (Paras 8-9). C) Criminal Procedure - Revision - Scope of Revisional Jurisdiction - No interference in concurrent findings of fact where appreciation of evidence is proper and no perversity shown (Paras 8-9). D) Sentencing - Leniency - Unnatural Offence Against Mentally Ill Person - The accused, after committing the act, introduced the victim to his brother for further abuse, indicating a grave nature of offence and no mitigating circumstance; the sentence of 7 years rigorous imprisonment was confirmed and leniency denied (Paras 9-10).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction and sentence of the accused under sections 377, 387 read with 34 IPC, based on the testimony of a mentally retarded victim, is sustainable? Whether the sentence should be reduced on grounds of leniency?
Final Decision
Criminal Revision Application dismissed. Conviction and sentence confirmed. No leniency shown. Criminal Application No. 500/2016 disposed of accordingly.
Law Points
- Testimony of victim with mild mental retardation is credible if consistent and corroborated
- No leniency for grave offence against mentally vulnerable person
- Concurrent findings of fact not interfered with under revisional jurisdiction unless perverse
