Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Deepak Shankarrao Borkar, was convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Wardha, in Special Case No. 7 of 2012 for offences under Section 376(2)(f) (rape of a minor) and Section 452 (house trespass) of the Indian Penal Code. He was sentenced to ten years rigorous imprisonment and fine for rape, and one year rigorous imprisonment and fine for house trespass, with sentences to run concurrently. The incident occurred on 15th October 2011, when the victim, an eleven-year-old girl, was alone at her home after school. Her mother, Sunanda (PW4), had gone to work. When Sunanda returned, she found the victim weeping. The victim disclosed that the appellant had entered the house, gagged her mouth, removed her clothes and his own, and inserted his private part into her private part, causing pain. Sunanda immediately called her husband and reported the matter to the police. The victim was examined medically, and the doctor found that her hymen was ruptured, though no definite opinion about rape could be given. The appellant was arrested and charged. The trial court convicted him based on the testimony of the victim, her mother, and the medical evidence. The appellant appealed to the Bombay High Court, arguing that the evidence was insufficient to prove rape, particularly in the absence of direct evidence of penetration. The High Court examined the evidence and held that the testimony of the child victim was reliable and corroborated by the medical report showing rupture of hymen. The court noted that the victim had made a prompt complaint to her mother, and the FIR was lodged without delay. The court also found that the appellant had entered the victim's house with intent to commit rape, satisfying the ingredients of Section 452 IPC. The court dismissed the appeal, upholding the conviction and sentence, finding no reason to interfere with the trial court's judgment.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Rape of Minor - Circumstantial Evidence - Conviction under Section 376(2)(f) IPC - The appellant was convicted for raping an eleven-year-old girl. The court held that even in the absence of direct evidence of penetration, the circumstantial evidence, including the medical report showing rupture of hymen and the prompt complaint to the mother, was sufficient to prove the offence. The testimony of the child victim was found reliable and corroborated by medical evidence. (Paras 1-10) B) Criminal Law - House Trespass - Section 452 IPC - The appellant entered the victim's house with intent to commit rape. The court upheld the conviction under Section 452 IPC as the evidence showed he entered the house and committed the offence. (Paras 1-10) C) Criminal Law - Sentencing - Rape of Minor - The sentence of ten years rigorous imprisonment and fine was held not excessive given the gravity of the offence and the age of the victim. The court found no reason to interfere with the sentence. (Paras 11-12)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellant under Sections 376(2)(f) and 452 of the Indian Penal Code is sustainable on the basis of the evidence on record.
Final Decision
Appeal dismissed. Conviction and sentence under Sections 376(2)(f) and 452 IPC upheld.
Law Points
- Conviction for rape can be based on circumstantial evidence and medical report even in absence of direct evidence of penetration
- Testimony of child victim is reliable if corroborated by medical evidence and prompt complaint
- Sentence of ten years rigorous imprisonment for rape of minor is not excessive
