Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Kundan Shivshankar Fating, was convicted by the Special Judge under the POCSO Act, Wardha, for offences under Section 8 read with Section 7 of the POCSO Act and Section 354-A(1)(i) of the Indian Penal Code. The incident occurred on 09/04/2015 at about 2:00 p.m. when the appellant, a guest of a tenant, entered the house of the 7-year-old victim on the pretext of playing with her. When the victim refused, the appellant removed her knicker, kissed her private part, and lay on her person. The victim bit his hand, causing him to flee. The victim's mother returned at 6:00 p.m., was informed, and lodged an FIR the next day. The appellant was arrested and charge-sheeted. The trial court convicted him, sentencing him to rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and fine. The appellant appealed, challenging the conviction on grounds of delay in FIR, contradictions in evidence, and lack of corroboration. The High Court examined the evidence, including the testimony of the victim (PW-1), her mother (PW-2), the doctor (PW-4), and the investigating officer (PW-5). The court found the victim's testimony to be natural, consistent, and credible. The medical evidence corroborated the sexual assault. The delay in FIR was satisfactorily explained by the mother's need to attend to her child and consult family. Minor contradictions regarding the time of the incident and the father's presence were held to be immaterial. The court upheld the conviction, finding no merit in the appeal.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Sexual Assault of Minor - POCSO Act, 2012, Sections 7, 8 - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 354-A - Credibility of Child Witness - The appellant was convicted for sexually assaulting a 7-year-old girl by kissing her private part and lying on her person. The child victim's testimony was found to be natural, consistent, and corroborated by medical evidence and prompt FIR. The court held that the child witness was competent and her evidence inspired confidence. (Paras 2-10) B) Criminal Procedure - Delay in FIR - Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - The FIR was lodged the next day after the incident. The delay was satisfactorily explained by the mother's need to attend to her child and consult family. The court held that delay in FIR is not fatal if properly explained. (Para 6) C) Criminal Law - Minor Contradictions - Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Minor discrepancies in the evidence of prosecution witnesses regarding the exact time of the incident and the presence of the victim's father were held to be immaterial and did not affect the core of the prosecution case. (Para 9)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellant under Section 8 read with Section 7 of the POCSO Act and Section 354-A(1)(i) of IPC is sustainable based on the evidence on record.
Final Decision
The appeal is dismissed. The judgment and order of conviction dated 14/09/2017 passed by the Special Judge under POCSO Act, Wardha in Special (Ch.) Case No.32/2015 is confirmed.
Law Points
- Testimony of child victim
- if credible and corroborated
- can sustain conviction under POCSO Act
- Section 8 read with Section 7
- Delay in FIR is not fatal if satisfactorily explained
- Minor contradictions in evidence do not affect prosecution case.
