Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Baburao @ Sagar Rupaji Dhuri, was convicted by the Special Judge under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO) for aggravated penetrative sexual assault under Section 6 and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for ten years with a fine of Rs.1000/-, and also convicted under Section 342 of the Indian Penal Code (wrongful confinement) and sentenced to one year rigorous imprisonment. He was acquitted of offences under Section 10 of POCSO and Sections 376, 366(A) IPC. The prosecution case was that on 18th April 2015, the five-and-a-half-year-old victim went to play with a boy named Babu. The appellant called her, took her to his room, removed her underwear, and inserted his finger into her private part. The victim cried, and neighbours M and G.R. heard her cries, saw the appellant with the victim, and rescued her. The victim's mother (P.W.1) lodged an FIR. The appellant challenged the conviction on grounds that the victim's testimony was unreliable, there were contradictions, and the medical evidence did not support penetration. The High Court examined the evidence, including the testimony of the victim (P.W.2), who was found to be a credible witness despite her tender age. The court noted that minor inconsistencies in the evidence of other witnesses did not affect the core of the prosecution case. The medical evidence showed redness and tenderness, consistent with the victim's account. The court held that the testimony of a child victim, if found credible, can be the sole basis for conviction and corroboration is not mandatory. The appeal was dismissed, and the conviction and sentence were upheld.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - POCSO Act - Aggravated Penetrative Sexual Assault - Section 6, Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 - Testimony of child victim, if found credible, can be sole basis for conviction; corroboration not mandatory - Minor inconsistencies in evidence do not discredit prosecution case - Appeal dismissed (Paras 1-26). B) Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code - Wrongful Confinement - Section 342 IPC - Conviction upheld as appellant dragged victim into room and locked door (Paras 1-26).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellant under Section 6 of the POCSO Act and Section 342 of IPC is sustainable based on the evidence of the child victim and eye witnesses.
Final Decision
Appeal dismissed. Conviction and sentence under Section 6 of POCSO Act and Section 342 of IPC upheld.
Law Points
- Testimony of child victim
- if found credible
- can be sole basis for conviction
- Corroboration not mandatory
- Minor inconsistencies do not discredit prosecution case
- Section 6 POCSO Act
- Section 342 IPC
