Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Mohamed Farid Jafer Shaikh, was convicted by the Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay, for offences under Sections 376(2)(f), 342, 363 read with 34, and 452 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for raping an 11-year-old girl. The incident occurred on 20 April 2011 at about 1:00 a.m. when the victim was sleeping in her house. The appellant, who was known to the family, entered the house, took the victim away, and raped her in a nearby room. The victim's mother, Alimabi (PW1), heard noises and saw the appellant quarreling with her son-in-law. The victim was later found and narrated the incident. Medical examination confirmed signs of recent sexual intercourse. The trial court sentenced the appellant to life imprisonment for rape, along with other sentences. The appellant appealed, challenging the conviction. The High Court examined the evidence, including the testimony of the victim (PW3), her mother (PW1), and the medical officer (PW4). The victim's testimony was found to be consistent and credible, and the medical evidence corroborated the rape. The court held that the prosecution had proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. The appeal was dismissed, and the conviction and sentences were upheld. The court also noted that the trial court had directed payment of Rs.15,000/- from the fine to the victim as compensation under Section 357(3) CrPC.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Rape of Minor - Conviction - Section 376(2)(f) IPC - The appellant was convicted for raping an 11-year-old girl. The victim's testimony was found consistent and credible, corroborated by medical evidence showing signs of recent sexual intercourse. The court held that the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and dismissed the appeal. (Paras 1-14) B) Criminal Law - Kidnapping - Section 363 IPC - The appellant took away the minor victim from lawful guardianship without consent. The evidence of the victim and her mother established the act of taking away. The conviction under Section 363 r/w 34 IPC was upheld. (Paras 2-14) C) Criminal Law - Wrongful Confinement - Section 342 IPC - The appellant wrongfully confined the victim in a room before committing the rape. The victim's testimony established confinement. Conviction upheld. (Paras 2-14) D) Criminal Law - House-trespass - Section 452 IPC - The appellant committed house-trespass after preparation for causing hurt. The evidence showed he entered the victim's house with intent to commit an offence. Conviction upheld. (Paras 2-14) E) Criminal Procedure - Compensation - Section 357(3) CrPC - The trial court directed payment of Rs.15,000/- fine to the survivor child as compensation. The High Court did not interfere with this direction. (Para 1)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellant under Sections 376(2)(f), 342, 363 r/w 34 and 452 r/w 34 of IPC is sustainable based on the evidence on record.
Final Decision
The appeal is dismissed. The conviction and sentences passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay on 3rd August 2013 in Sessions Case No.699 of 2011 are upheld.
Law Points
- Conviction under Section 376(2)(f) IPC for rape of a minor can be based on sole testimony of victim if found credible
- Medical evidence corroborating rape
- Section 363 IPC kidnapping
- Section 342 IPC wrongful confinement
- Section 452 IPC house-trespass after preparation for hurt
- Section 357(3) CrPC compensation to victim
