Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Sarjerao Nagoji Lahane, was convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Brihan Mumbai, on June 21, 2001, in Sessions Case No.1425 of 1999 for the offence punishable under Section 376 read with Section 511 of the Indian Penal Code (attempt to rape). The prosecution case was that the accused was seen holding a five-to-six-year-old girl named Pooja on his lap and inserting his finger into her private part. The incident was witnessed by P.W.2, Meena, the maternal aunt of the victim, who raised shouts, causing the accused to throw the child and flee. Meena informed her husband Babulal (P.W.3), and together they took Pooja to the police station and then to the Government Hospital, where she was treated for third-degree injuries to her private part, as testified by Dr. Vilas R. Dhanuk (P.W.6). The prosecution did not examine the victim Pooja, but the Investigating Officer (P.W.8) provided an explanation for her non-examination, which the trial court accepted. The trial court convicted the appellant based on the testimony of P.W.2 and the medical evidence. The appellant appealed to the Bombay High Court, challenging the conviction. The High Court, in its oral order dated October 12, 2006, upheld the conviction, finding that the evidence of P.W.2 was credible and corroborated by the medical evidence of third-degree injuries. The court noted that the non-examination of the victim was not fatal as the explanation was satisfactory. The appeal was dismissed, and the conviction and sentence were confirmed.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Attempt to Rape - Section 376 r/w 511 Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sufficiency of Evidence - Conviction based on testimony of eyewitness (P.W.2) and medical evidence (P.W.6) upheld despite non-examination of victim - Held that non-examination of victim was satisfactorily explained by Investigating Officer and accepted by trial court; medical evidence of third-degree injury corroborated eyewitness account (Paras 1-2).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction for attempt to rape under Section 376 r/w 511 IPC can be sustained solely on the testimony of an eyewitness (maternal aunt) and medical evidence, without examining the minor victim.
Final Decision
Appeal dismissed. Conviction and sentence under Section 376 r/w 511 IPC confirmed.
Law Points
- Corroboration of testimony of child victim not mandatory
- Medical evidence can corroborate eyewitness account
- Non-examination of victim not fatal if explanation satisfactory
- Attempt to rape requires proof of intention and act towards commission
