Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Lakhu @ Lakhan Dharma Gaikwad, a police constable, was convicted by the Designated Court under the POCSO Act and Additional Sessions Judge, Solapur, in Sessions Case No.169 of 2016 for offences under Section 376(2)(i) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act). He was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for ten years on each count, with a fine of Rs.25,000/-, and default imprisonment of one month, the sentences to run concurrently. The appellant challenged this judgment and order dated 31st January 2018 before the Bombay High Court. The facts leading to the prosecution are that on 21st February 2016 at about 5:30 p.m., the appellant, who resided in the same police line quarters as the victim's family, called the victim, a 3-year-old girl, into his house. The victim's mother, Sonam (PW1), and father, Prabhakar (PW2), were neighbours. The appellant's daughter Neha had taken the victim to play, and later the appellant called the victim inside his house and inserted his finger into her vagina. The victim immediately returned home and told her mother about the incident. The mother saw the victim's private parts and noticed redness. She immediately went to the appellant's house and confronted him, but he denied. She then lodged an FIR at the Jail Road Police Station, Solapur, on the same day. The victim was examined by Dr. Shilpa (PW4), who found redness and tenderness in the vaginal area, consistent with sexual assault. The trial court convicted the appellant based on the testimony of the victim (PW3), her mother (PW1), father (PW2), and the medical evidence. The High Court, in appeal, examined the evidence and found that the child victim's testimony was credible and reliable, despite her young age. The court noted that the child had given a consistent account of the incident and had identified the appellant in court. The medical evidence corroborated the sexual assault. The court also noted the promptness of the complaint. The court rejected the appellant's argument that the child was tutored, as there was no evidence of tutoring. The court held that the prosecution had proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. The appeal was dismissed, and the conviction and sentence were upheld.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Aggravated Penetrative Sexual Assault - Testimony of Child Victim - Corroboration - The appellant, a police constable, was convicted for inserting his finger into the vagina of a 3-year-old girl. The court held that the testimony of the child victim (PW3), though a child witness, was credible and corroborated by medical evidence (PW4 Dr. Shilpa) which showed redness and tenderness in the vaginal area, and by the prompt complaint (FIR) lodged by the mother (PW1) on the same day. The court found no reason to disbelieve the child's account and upheld the conviction. (Paras 1-46) B) Criminal Law - Sentencing - Aggravated Penetrative Sexual Assault - Minimum Sentence - The court held that the sentence of 10 years rigorous imprisonment under Section 376(2)(i) IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act, with a fine of Rs.25,000/-, was appropriate and not excessive given the gravity of the offence against a minor child. The sentences were directed to run concurrently. (Paras 1, 46)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellant under Section 376(2)(i) IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act is sustainable based on the evidence on record.
Final Decision
The appeal is dismissed. The conviction and sentence of the appellant under Section 376(2)(i) IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act are upheld.
Law Points
- Testimony of child victim
- if credible and corroborated
- can sustain conviction
- Medical evidence corroborating sexual assault
- Prompt complaint and FIR are relevant
- Section 376(2)(i) IPC applies to rape on a child under 12 years
- Section 6 POCSO Act applies to aggravated penetrative sexual assault on a child
- Sentence of 10 years RI is appropriate for such offences
