Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Amol S/o Raju Nindekar, was convicted by the Special Court, Chandrapur, for offences under Section 376(2)(i)(n) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for ten years and a fine of Rs.5,000. The victim, a 16-year-old girl studying in 10th standard, lodged an FIR on 24.9.2016 alleging that the appellant, her neighbour, had been sexually assaulting her for about a year. She stated that she used to visit his house to watch television, and he initially touched her inappropriately, and later established sexual relations. The victim became pregnant and was taken to a doctor, which led to the disclosure. The appellant challenged the conviction on the ground that the FIR was delayed and the evidence was insufficient. The High Court, after hearing both sides, upheld the conviction. The court found the victim's testimony to be consistent and credible, and noted that the medical evidence confirmed sexual intercourse. The delay in lodging the FIR was explained by the victim's fear and family attempts at settlement. The court held that the prosecution had proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and dismissed the appeal.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Rape of Minor - Section 376(2)(i)(n) IPC and Section 6 POCSO Act - Conviction based on victim's testimony - The appellant was convicted for penetrative sexual assault on a 16-year-old victim. The court held that the testimony of the victim is sufficient to convict the accused if it is credible and reliable, and corroboration by medical evidence is not mandatory. The victim's consistent deposition and medical evidence of sexual intercourse were relied upon. (Paras 1-10) B) Criminal Procedure - Delay in FIR - Not fatal if explained - The FIR was lodged after one year of the incident. The court held that delay in lodging FIR is not fatal if it is satisfactorily explained. In this case, the victim was under threat and the family was trying to settle the matter, which explains the delay. (Paras 3-5) C) Evidence Law - Testimony of Victim - Corroboration - The court held that the sole testimony of the victim, if found trustworthy, is sufficient to base a conviction. The medical evidence in this case corroborated the victim's version. (Paras 6-8)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellant under Section 376(2)(i)(n) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 is sustainable on the basis of the evidence on record.
Final Decision
The appeal is dismissed. The conviction and sentence passed by the Special Court, Chandrapur, dated 25.4.2019 in Special (POCSO) Case No.02/2018 are confirmed.
Law Points
- Conviction under Section 376(2)(i)(n) IPC and Section 6 POCSO Act
- Testimony of victim alone sufficient for conviction
- Delay in FIR not fatal if properly explained
- Medical evidence corroborating sexual intercourse
