Case Note & Summary
The High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, dismissed an appeal against conviction for the rape of a minor step-daughter under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO) and the Indian Penal Code. The appellant, the step-father of the 15-year-old victim, was convicted by the Sessions Court, Wardha for penetrative sexual assault under Section 5(n) punishable under Section 6 of the POCSO Act and criminal intimidation under Section 506 IPC, and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life and two years respectively, with fines. The victim, aged about 15 years and studying in 7th standard, lived alone with the appellant after the death of her mother. In late 2013, after she disclosed the onset of menstruation, the appellant accused her of sleeping with someone else and then began having sexual intercourse with her, continuing almost every night until February 2014. Becoming unwell and pregnant, she confided in her neighbour Lata Ramteke, who took her to Dr. Mohd. Shoeb Sheikh. The doctor confirmed pregnancy and alerted the police. An FIR was registered on 27.2.2014 for offences under the IPC and POCSO. The prosecution case rested on the victim's testimony, medical evidence of pregnancy, and DNA analysis. The DNA report conclusively established the appellant as the biological father of the child born to the victim on 1.6.2014. The victim's age was proved by a school certificate and the appellant's own admission during questioning under Section 313 Cr.P.C., confirming she was a child under Section 2(d) of the POCSO Act. On appeal, the appellant contended that the seizure of blood samples for DNA testing was not proved as the panch witnesses were not examined, and thus the DNA report should be excluded. The High Court rejected this argument, holding that although the seizure panchnama was not proved by examining the panchas, the medical officer and investigating officer testified regarding the collection of samples, and the appellant did not challenge the DNA report's conclusions or raise any dispute about the identity of the samples. The court noted that the blood samples were taken with the appellant's consent and the chain of custody was sufficiently established through the testimony of the officers and the medical professional. The procedural lapse was not fatal to the prosecution case. The court applied the settled principle that in sexual assault cases, the sole testimony of the prosecutrix, if credible and reliable, is sufficient for conviction without formal corroboration. The victim's account was consistent, her disclosure was prompt when circumstances allowed, and her testimony was fully supported by medical and scientific evidence. The court found no material contradictions or reasons to disbelieve her. Accordingly, the High Court upheld the conviction and sentence, confirming the life imprisonment for penetrative sexual assault and two years for criminal intimidation. The appeal was dismissed.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Rape and Sexual Offences - Sole Testimony of Victim - Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, Sections 3,4,5(n),6; Indian Penal Code, Section 376 - The court, relying on Supreme Court precedents, held that conviction for sexual assault can be based on the sole testimony of the victim if found truthful and reliable, without requiring corroboration, unless there are compelling reasons. The testimony of the prosecutrix is more reliable than that of an injured witness and minor contradictions should not discredit the prosecution case (Paras 10-11). B) Criminal Law - Age Determination - Child under POCSO - Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, Section 2(d) - The victim's age was established as 15 years at the time of the incident through a school certificate and the accused's admission in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., confirming she was a child under the POCSO Act (Para 19). C) Criminal Law - Evidence - DNA Test Proof - Procedural Lapses - Seizure of blood samples was not proved by examining panch witnesses, but the court held that the DNA report was not challenged; the medical officer and investigating officer testified to collection of samples with consent, and the appellant did not dispute the report. The failure to prove the seizure panchnama did not vitiate the DNA evidence (Paras 20-22).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction based on the sole testimony of the victim and DNA evidence was valid, and whether the failure to examine panch witnesses for seizure of blood samples vitiated the DNA report
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the appeal, finding no merit in the appellant's contentions. The court held that the victim's testimony was credible and well-corroborated by medical and DNA evidence, the age was proved, and procedural lapses in seizure did not affect the DNA report. Conviction and sentences confirmed.
Law Points
- Sole testimony of prosecutrix sufficient for conviction in rape cases
- corroboration not sine qua non
- minor discrepancies do not vitiate prosecution case
- DNA evidence admissible
- procedural lapses in seizure of blood samples not fatal when consent and medical evidence establish identity
