Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Pravin S/o Suryabhanji Gube, was convicted by the learned Extra Joint Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur on 12.9.2018 in Special Child Protection Case No. 134/2016 for the offence under Section 5(m) punishable under Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act) and under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). He was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for ten years and a fine of Rs.15,000/-, with default sentence of six months. No separate punishment was imposed for the offence under Section 376 IPC. The victim, a six-year-old girl, was playing in the courtyard with her younger brother and cousin when the appellant, a neighbour, took them on his motorcycle, gave them chocolates, and then sent the other children away. He took the victim to a Ganpati temple about two kilometers away, and in the bushes behind the temple, he removed her undergarment, opened his pant zip, and inserted his private part into her private part. The victim shouted but was told not to. After the act, he brought her back home and gave her samosas. The victim narrated the incident to her mother, who took her to the police station. The FIR was lodged on the same day at 8:00 pm. The victim's testimony was recorded and she was cross-examined. The medical evidence showed injuries on her private parts. The appellant denied the allegations and claimed false implication. The trial court convicted him. On appeal, the High Court examined the evidence. The court found the victim's testimony to be credible, consistent, and reliable. The medical evidence corroborated her version. The court held that the delay in lodging the FIR was satisfactorily explained. The court dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction and sentence.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Aggravated Penetrative Sexual Assault - Testimony of Child Victim - Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, Sections 5(m), 6 - The victim, aged six years, deposed about the incident in a clear and consistent manner. The court held that her testimony inspires confidence and is sufficient to convict the appellant, even without corroboration, as she was a reliable witness. (Paras 10-12) B) Criminal Law - Corroboration - Medical Evidence - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 376 - The medical evidence showed injuries on the victim's private parts, which corroborated her version of penetrative sexual assault. The court held that the medical evidence supports the prosecution case. (Para 13) C) Criminal Law - Delay in FIR - Explanation - No specific Act - The FIR was lodged on the same day at 8:00 pm, and the court found that the delay was satisfactorily explained by the time taken for the victim to reach home and for the mother to decide to report. The court held that the delay is not fatal. (Para 14) D) Criminal Law - Conviction - Sole Testimony of Victim - Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, Section 6 - The court held that the testimony of the child victim, if found credible, can be the sole basis for conviction. In this case, the victim's testimony was corroborated by medical evidence and the prompt FIR. (Paras 10-15)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellant under Section 5(m) punishable under Section 6 of the POCSO Act and Section 376 of IPC is sustainable based on the evidence on record.
Final Decision
The appeal is dismissed. The judgment and order of conviction passed by the learned Extra Joint Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur dated 12.9.2018 in Special Child Protection Case No. 134/2016 is confirmed.
Law Points
- Testimony of child victim
- if credible
- can be sole basis for conviction
- Corroboration by medical evidence strengthens prosecution case
- Delay in FIR not fatal if satisfactorily explained
- Section 5(m) POCSO Act applies when victim is below 12 years
- Section 6 POCSO Act provides minimum 10 years RI for aggravated penetrative sexual assault
