Case Note & Summary
The appeal arose from a conviction by the Special Court for Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, Greater Bombay, in POCSO Case No. 485 of 2018. The appellant, father of the victim, was convicted under section 376(2)(f) of the Indian Penal Code and sections 6 and 9(n) read with section 10 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, for raping his minor daughter, and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life. The prosecution case was based on the victim's statement given on 27.07.2018, detailing inappropriate touching since age 10 and physical and sexual abuse on multiple occasions, with the latest incident on 21.07.2018. The victim reported the abuse after a 'Police Didi' program at her school, leading to FIR registration. The prosecution examined nine witnesses, including the victim, doctor, school principals, counsellor, social worker, panch witness, and investigating officers. The appellant examined defence witnesses, including his wife and mother-in-law, claiming false implication due to the victim's anger over discontinued studies. The appellant challenged the conviction on grounds including failure to prove the victim's minority, unreliable victim testimony requiring corroboration, lack of medical evidence, and implausibility of incidents in a small living space. The Court analyzed the evidence, applying Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 for age determination, and held that school records sufficiently proved the victim was a minor. The Court found the victim's testimony credible and consistent, not requiring corroboration under POCSO Act, 2012, and rejected the defence of false implication. Medical evidence was deemed consistent with repeated abuse, and absence of fresh injuries did not disprove the offence. The Court upheld the conviction and life imprisonment sentence, dismissing the appeal.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Age Determination - Minor Victim - Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, Evidence Act, 1872 - The appellant challenged the victim's minority status, citing an ossification test indicating age between 17-18 years and arguing that school records were insufficient. The Court held that the prosecution proved the victim was a minor through school records and testimony, applying Section 94 of the JJ Act, 2015, and noting that ossification tests provide a range, not exact age. The Trial Court's reliance on school records was upheld as proper under Section 35 of the Evidence Act, 1872. (Paras 8-10) B) Criminal Law - Evidence - Victim Testimony - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 - The appellant argued that the victim's testimony required corroboration and was unreliable due to lack of details and implausibility in a small living space. The Court held that the victim's testimony was credible, consistent, and did not require corroboration under POCSO Act, 2012, as it was supported by other witnesses and the circumstances. The Court rejected the defence of false implication based on the victim's anger over discontinued studies. (Paras 7, 12-13) C) Criminal Law - Medical Evidence - Sexual Assault Cases - Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 - The appellant contended that medical evidence did not corroborate the victim's claims, as there were no fresh injuries and hymenal tears were old. The Court held that absence of fresh injuries does not disprove sexual assault, especially in cases of repeated abuse, and medical evidence was consistent with the victim's account. The Court emphasized that medical evidence is not mandatory for conviction under POCSO Act, 2012. (Para 14) D) Criminal Law - Sentencing - Life Imprisonment - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 - The appellant was convicted and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life under section 376(2)(f) IPC and sections 6 and 9(n) read with section 10 of POCSO Act, 2012. The Court upheld the sentence, finding it appropriate given the gravity of the offence involving a minor daughter, and dismissed the appeal. (Paras 1, 6)
Premium Content
The Headnote is only available to subscribed members.
Subscribe Now to access key legal points
Issue of Consideration: Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant committed offences under section 376(2)(f) IPC and sections 6 and 9(n) read with section 10 of POCSO Act, 2012, including whether the victim was a minor at the time of incidents.
Premium Content
The Issue of Consideration is only available to subscribed members.
Subscribe Now to access critical case issues
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the conviction under section 376(2)(f) IPC and sections 6 and 9(n) read with section 10 of POCSO Act, 2012, and the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for life.
