Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Mohan Ambadas Meshram, was convicted by the Sessions Court, Chandrapur, under Section 376(2)(i) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act), and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and a fine of Rs.5,000. The prosecution case was that on 08.01.2015, the prosecutrix (PW4), a minor girl, was playing under a tree near the appellant's under-construction house. The appellant lured her into the house by offering Rs.2. Her friends (including PW5) saw through a hole in the wall that the appellant was lying on top of the victim with her knicker removed. One friend informed Shila Meshram (PW2), who also saw the act. Shila took the victim to her mother Diksha Meshram (PW1), who lodged an oral report the next day (09.01.2015) due to the father's absence. The victim was medically examined by Dr. Jaya Bhongle (PW9), and her clothes were seized. The trial court convicted the appellant. In appeal, the appellant challenged the conviction on grounds of delay in FIR and lack of corroboration. The High Court held that the testimony of the child victim (PW4) was credible and corroborated by eyewitnesses (PW2 and PW5) and medical evidence. The delay in FIR was satisfactorily explained by the mother's waiting for the father. The court found no reason to interfere with the conviction and dismissed the appeal.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Rape of Minor - Conviction under Section 376(2)(i) IPC and Section 6 POCSO Act - Testimony of child victim (PW4) found credible and corroborated by eyewitnesses (PW2, PW5) who saw the act through a hole in the wall - Medical evidence consistent with sexual assault - Delay in lodging FIR explained by absence of father - Held that conviction is sustainable (Paras 1-10) B) Evidence Law - Child Witness - Credibility - The testimony of a child witness can be relied upon if it is trustworthy and corroborated by other evidence - In this case, the child victim's testimony was consistent and corroborated by eyewitnesses and medical evidence (Paras 5-8) C) Criminal Procedure - Delay in FIR - Explanation - Delay in lodging FIR is not fatal if satisfactorily explained - Here, the mother waited for the father's return, which was a reasonable explanation (Para 3)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellant under Section 376(2)(i) IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act is sustainable on the basis of the evidence on record
Final Decision
Appeal dismissed; conviction and sentence upheld
Law Points
- Conviction under Section 376(2)(i) IPC and Section 6 POCSO Act can be based on sole testimony of child victim if found credible
- corroboration by eyewitnesses strengthens case
- delay in lodging FIR is not fatal if satisfactorily explained
