Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Chandkha s/o Ibrahimkha Pathan, was convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Hinganghat, in Special (Child) Case 1 of 2017 for offences under Sections 363, 366A, and 376(2)(i) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO Act). He was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three years under Section 363, five years under Section 366A, and ten years under Section 376(2)(i), with fines. The case arose from an incident on 5 November 2013, when the victim, a 15-year-old girl, left home at 11 a.m. without informing anyone. Her mother, PW 1 Vandana Agare, lodged a report at Samudrapur Police Station after learning that the victim was at the police station. The victim disclosed that the accused forced her to accompany him on his Splendor motorcycle to a jungle via Samudrapur-Girad road, where he subjected her to forcible sexual intercourse and threatened her with dire consequences. On the basis of the report (Exh. 59), an FIR was registered. The trial court convicted the appellant. In appeal, the High Court heard arguments from the appellant's counsel, Ms. Sweety Bhatia, and the Additional Public Prosecutor, Mr. C.A. Lokhande. The court scrutinized the evidence, particularly the testimony of the victim (PW 2) and the medical evidence. The court found the victim's testimony to be credible and consistent, and noted that minor inconsistencies did not discredit her. The medical evidence corroborated the sexual assault. The court held that the prosecution had proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. The appeal was dismissed, and the conviction and sentences were upheld. The court also noted that no separate sentence under the POCSO Act was necessary in view of Section 42 of that Act.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Kidnapping - Section 363 IPC - Ingredients - Prosecution must prove that the accused took or enticed a minor out of lawful guardianship without consent - In this case, victim aged 15 years was taken by accused on motorcycle to a jungle - Held that the offence of kidnapping is made out (Paras 4-5). B) Criminal Law - Rape of Minor - Section 376(2)(i) IPC - Aggravated rape - Accused committed forcible sexual intercourse with a 15-year-old girl - Victim's testimony corroborated by medical evidence and prompt FIR - Held that conviction under Section 376(2)(i) is proper (Paras 4-6). C) Criminal Law - POCSO Act - Section 4 read with Section 42 - No separate sentence - Accused convicted under IPC for same act - Section 42 POCSO Act provides that if an act is punishable under both IPC and POCSO, the offender shall be liable for punishment under either Act which provides greater punishment - Held that no separate sentence under POCSO is required (Para 2).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellant under Sections 363, 366A, 376(2)(i) IPC and Section 4 of POCSO Act is sustainable based on the evidence on record.
Final Decision
Appeal dismissed. Conviction and sentences under Sections 363, 366A, 376(2)(i) IPC and Section 4 POCSO Act upheld.
Law Points
- Testimony of victim in sexual offences is sufficient for conviction if credible
- minor inconsistencies do not discredit
- Section 376(2)(i) IPC applies for rape of minor
- Section 42 POCSO Act provides for no separate sentence if convicted under IPC.
