Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Sujoy @ Sanjay Laltu Chakravarty, was convicted by the Special Judge, Gondia, in Special POCSO Case No. 11/2014 for offences under Sections 363, 366, and 376(2)(i) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Sections 5(a)(i) and (l) read with Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act). The case arose from a report lodged by Lokram Bhelave (PW4), the father of the victim, on 20.12.2013, alleging that the appellant had kidnapped his 15-year-old daughter. The victim was recovered from the appellant's custody, and a medical examination confirmed recent sexual intercourse. The trial court convicted the appellant, sentencing him to rigorous imprisonment for 5 years under Section 363 IPC, 7 years under Section 366 IPC, and 10 years under Section 376(2)(i) IPC and the POCSO Act, with fines. The appellant appealed, arguing that the victim was a consenting adult and that the prosecution failed to prove her age. The High Court examined the evidence, including the ossification test (Exh. 33) and school leaving certificate (Exh. 34), which established the victim's age as below 16 years. The court held that the victim's consent was irrelevant as she was a minor. The victim's testimony regarding the rape was corroborated by medical evidence (Exh. 32). The court found no merit in the appeal and upheld the conviction, directing that the sentences run concurrently. The appeal was dismissed.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Kidnapping - Age of Victim - Ossification Test and School Records - The victim's age was proved to be below 16 years through ossification test (Exh. 33) and school leaving certificate (Exh. 34), making her a minor. The appellant's argument that the victim was a consenting adult was rejected as consent is irrelevant for a minor. (Paras 6-10) B) Criminal Law - Rape - Minor Victim - POCSO Act - The victim's testimony regarding the incident of rape was corroborated by medical evidence (Exh. 32) showing signs of recent sexual intercourse. The appellant's conviction under Section 376(2)(i) IPC and Section 5(a)(i) and (l) read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act was upheld. (Paras 11-14) C) Criminal Law - Sentencing - Rigorous Imprisonment - The appellant was sentenced to 10 years rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 376(2)(i) IPC and POCSO Act, with fine. The sentences were directed to run concurrently. (Para 15)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellant under Sections 363, 366, 376(2)(i) IPC and Sections 5(a)(i) and (l) read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act is sustainable based on the evidence of age and the incident.
Final Decision
The appeal is dismissed. The conviction and sentence passed by the learned Special Judge, Gondia, in Special POCSO Case No. 11/2014 dated 09.06.2016 are upheld. The sentences are directed to run concurrently.
Law Points
- Age of victim determined by ossification test and school records
- consent of minor irrelevant
- conviction under POCSO Act and IPC upheld
