Case Note & Summary
The criminal appeal before the High Court arose from the conviction of the accused under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, and the Indian Penal Code for the rape of a thirteen-year-old girl. The trial court had sentenced the accused to ten years of rigorous imprisonment. The incident occurred on 25 January 2014, when the victim, a student of the ninth standard, returned from school and went to play with the granddaughter of the accused. The accused sent his granddaughter to buy chocolates, then lured the victim into his house, bolted the door, increased the television volume, and subjected her to sexual intercourse. He threatened her not to disclose the incident. The victim later confided in her mother, who lodged a complaint with the police. The prosecution examined nine witnesses, including the victim, her mother, and medical professionals. The defence theory was that the case was falsely lodged due to a monetary dispute and to claim government compensation. The trial court convicted the accused under Section 6 of the POCSO Act and Section 376(2)(i) of the IPC. On appeal, the accused contended that the prosecution failed to prove the victim's age, that the medical evidence was inconsistent, and that his inability to produce a semen sample undermined the case. The State countered that the victim's age was unchallenged in cross-examination, her testimony was credible and corroborated by medical findings, and the defence of false implication was unsubstantiated. The High Court noted that the victim's statement of her date of birth was not disputed, and relying on the precedent in Kundan v. State of Maharashtra, held that unchallenged testimony on age must be accepted. The victim's narrative was found to be confidence inspiring, and minor omissions did not affect its core. The medical evidence of an oedematous labia and torn hymen provided strong corroboration. The court also observed that the forensic report detected blood and semen on the victim's clothing, and the accused's inability to give a semen sample was not decisive. The defence suggestion of false implication lacked any evidentiary support. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction and sentence, reiterating that the sole testimony of a prosecutrix, if reliable, is sufficient for conviction.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Proof of Age under POCSO Act - Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, Section 2(d) - The victim stated her date of birth in evidence and such statement was not challenged in cross-examination - Held that in the absence of challenge, the statement is accepted and the victim is proved to be a child (Para 5). B) Evidence - Credibility of Prosecutrix - Minor omissions in testimony that do not affect the substratum of the case do not discredit the witness - No specific Act - The victim's testimony was found confidence inspiring and the omissions were inconsequential - Held that the testimony was reliable and sufficient for conviction (Para 5). C) Criminal Law - Medical Evidence - Medical findings of oedematous labia and torn hymen corroborate the victim's testimony of sexual assault - Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Section 45 - The medical evidence went virtually unchallenged and lent corroboration - Held that medical evidence amply corroborated the ocular evidence (Para 6). D) Criminal Law - Defence of False Implication - Mere suggestion of false implication without supporting material is insufficient to discredit prosecution case - No specific Act - The defence suggested demand of loan repayment and claim for compensation, but no evidence was adduced - Held that the defence was unsubstantiated and rejected (Paras 3, 7). E) Evidence - Forensic Evidence - Inability of accused to give semen sample for analysis does not negate other evidence of sexual assault - No specific Act - Chemical analysis showed semen on victim's clothing; accused's inability to provide sample did not falsify prosecution case - Held that it is not decisive and other evidence was sufficient (Para 8).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the prosecution proved the victim was a child under POCSO Act; Whether the victim's testimony was credible; Whether the defence of false implication was established; Whether the inability to give semen sample vitiated the prosecution case
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction under section 6 of the POCSO Act and section 376(2)(i) IPC. The sentence of rigorous imprisonment for ten years and fine of Rs. 500/- was maintained.
Law Points
- Unchallenged testimony of victim on age is accepted as proof
- sole testimony of prosecutrix sufficient for conviction if credible
- minor omissions not affecting core narrative do not discredit witness
- inability of accused to give semen sample does not negate other evidence
- defence of false implication must be supported by material
