Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Nishikant Maruti Nimbalkar, was convicted by the Sessions Judge, Amravati, for aggravated penetrative sexual assault under Section 5(m) read with Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, and alternatively under Section 376(2)(i) of the Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to ten years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine. The prosecution case was that on 24 January 2015, the appellant called the 9-year-old victim into his house, sent away her friends, and committed penetrative sexual assault. The victim's mother, PW1 Sunanda Pathade, found the victim weeping and complaining of pain, and the victim disclosed the incident. Medical examination of the victim revealed injuries consistent with sexual assault. The appellant denied the allegations. The High Court, in appeal, examined the evidence of the victim (PW2), her mother (PW1), and the medical officer (PW3). The court found the victim's testimony to be natural, consistent, and credible, and noted that the medical evidence corroborated her account. The court held that the delay in filing the FIR was satisfactorily explained by the family's circumstances. The court dismissed the appeal, upholding the conviction and sentence.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Aggravated Penetrative Sexual Assault - Section 5(m) read with Section 6, Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 - Conviction based on victim's testimony and medical evidence - The appellant was convicted for committing penetrative sexual assault on a 9-year-old girl. The court held that the testimony of the victim, corroborated by medical evidence showing injuries, was sufficient to prove the offence. The appeal was dismissed. (Paras 1-10) B) Criminal Law - Alternative Conviction - Section 376(2)(i) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Conviction for rape of a minor - The court upheld the alternative conviction under IPC, noting that the evidence established sexual intercourse with a child below 12 years. (Paras 1-10) C) Evidence Law - Child Witness - Reliability - No requirement of corroboration if testimony is trustworthy - The court found the victim's testimony credible and consistent, and thus no corroboration was necessary. (Paras 5-8)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellant under Section 5(m) read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012, and alternatively under Section 376(2)(i) IPC, is sustainable on the basis of the evidence on record.
Final Decision
Appeal dismissed. Conviction and sentence under Section 5(m) read with Section 6 of POCSO Act, 2012 and alternatively under Section 376(2)(i) IPC upheld.
Law Points
- Evidence of child victim
- corroborated by medical evidence
- sufficient for conviction under POCSO Act
- Section 5(m) read with Section 6
- Alternative conviction under Section 376(2)(i) IPC also sustainable
- Delay in FIR explained by family circumstances
- No requirement of corroboration if child's testimony is reliable.
