Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Baban Devji Rathod, was convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Satara, for the offence punishable under Section 376(2)(f) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for raping his own minor daughter, aged about 10 years. He was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and a fine of Rs. 10,000. The incident occurred on 3 September 2012, when the appellant took the victim from her school under the pretext of taking her for signing at the rationing office. Instead, he took her to an agricultural land with sugarcane crop, where he sexually assaulted her, causing bleeding injuries. He then dropped her at her grandmother's house and threatened her with dire consequences if she disclosed the incident. The victim narrated the incident to her maternal aunt and later to her grandmother, Sushila Chavan (PW-7), who lodged an FIR at Satara City Police Station, resulting in Crime No. 162 of 2012 under Section 376 IPC. After investigation, charge-sheet was filed, and the case was committed to the Sessions Court as Sessions Case No. 11 of 2013. The prosecution examined 17 witnesses, including the victim (PW-9), who turned hostile and denied the incident. The trial court convicted the appellant based on the medical evidence, the FIR, and the testimony of other witnesses, including the grandmother and the doctor. The appellant appealed to the Bombay High Court. The High Court upheld the conviction, holding that the medical evidence corroborated the prosecution case, and the victim's hostile testimony did not dislodge the overwhelming evidence against the appellant. The court found that the victim's denial was contradicted by her earlier statement under Section 164 CrPC and the medical case papers. The appeal was dismissed, and the conviction and sentence were confirmed.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Rape of Minor - Section 376(2)(f) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Conviction based on hostile victim - The appellant, biological father, was convicted for raping his 10-year-old daughter. The victim turned hostile in court, but the prosecution's case was corroborated by medical evidence, FIR, and testimony of grandmother and other witnesses. The court held that the conviction can be sustained despite the victim turning hostile as the medical evidence and other circumstances proved the offence beyond reasonable doubt. (Paras 1-10) B) Evidence Law - Hostile Witness - Section 154 Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Value of hostile witness testimony - The victim was declared hostile, but her evidence can be relied upon to the extent it supports the prosecution case. The court noted that the victim's denial in court was contradicted by her earlier statement under Section 164 CrPC and medical evidence. (Paras 6-8) C) Criminal Procedure - FIR - Delay in lodging FIR - The FIR was lodged on the same day of the incident. The court found no delay and held that even if there was delay, it was satisfactorily explained by the circumstances. (Paras 3-4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellant under Section 376(2)(f) of the Indian Penal Code for raping his minor daughter is sustainable when the victim turned hostile and the prosecution relied on circumstantial and medical evidence.
Final Decision
Appeal dismissed. Conviction and sentence under Section 376(2)(f) IPC confirmed.
Law Points
- Conviction for rape of minor daughter can be sustained despite victim turning hostile if medical evidence
- FIR
- and other witnesses corroborate the prosecution case
- Section 376(2)(f) IPC applies to rape of a child under 12 years
- Hostile witness's evidence can be relied upon to the extent it supports prosecution
- Delay in FIR is not fatal if satisfactorily explained
