Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Rajendra Bhima Asudeo, was convicted by the Special Judge under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act) for offences punishable under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, as well as under Sections 354 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The incident occurred on 22nd March 2013, when the appellant allegedly put his penis in the mouth of the victim, a female child, and threatened to kill her if she disclosed the incident. The victim's mother (PW2) and a neighbour (PW3) were informed, and after enquiry, the victim narrated the incident. The FIR was lodged on 25th March 2013. The trial court convicted the appellant, sentencing him to 10 years rigorous imprisonment under Section 6 POCSO Act, 1 year under Section 354 IPC, and 2 years under Section 506 IPC. The appellant appealed against the conviction. The High Court examined the evidence, particularly the testimony of the child victim (PW1), her mother (PW2), and the neighbour (PW3). The court found the child's testimony to be credible and reliable, despite minor inconsistencies. The court held that the delay in lodging the FIR was satisfactorily explained by the mother's fear and the need to consult the husband. The court also held that corroboration is not mandatory in sexual offences, and the child's testimony alone can sustain the conviction. The court dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction and sentences.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Aggravated Penetrative Sexual Assault - Section 6 Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 - Testimony of Child Victim - The court considered whether the uncorroborated testimony of a child victim can form the basis of conviction. Held that the testimony of the child victim, if found credible and reliable, can be the sole basis for conviction, and minor inconsistencies do not discredit the prosecution case (Paras 10-15). B) Criminal Law - Delay in FIR - Section 154 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - The court examined the effect of delay in lodging the FIR. Held that delay in lodging the FIR is not fatal if it is satisfactorily explained, and in cases of sexual assault on children, delay is often natural due to fear and shame (Paras 8-9). C) Criminal Law - Corroboration - Sexual Offences - The court addressed the necessity of corroboration in sexual offence cases. Held that corroboration is not a mandatory requirement in sexual offences, and the sole testimony of the victim can sustain a conviction if it inspires confidence (Paras 12-14).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellant under Section 6 of the POCSO Act and Sections 354 and 506 IPC is sustainable based on the testimony of the child victim and other evidence.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction and sentences imposed by the trial court.
Law Points
- Testimony of child victim can be sole basis for conviction if found credible
- Section 6 POCSO Act
- Section 354 IPC
- Section 506 IPC
- Corroboration not mandatory in sexual offences
- Delay in FIR not fatal if explained
