Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Salim Khan s/o Noor Khan, was convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad, in Special Case No. 06 of 2015 for offences under Sections 376(2), 506, and 323 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for raping his minor daughter on multiple occasions. The prosecution case was that on 09.03.2014, while the family was asleep, the appellant forcibly raped the prosecutrix, a minor, and threatened to kill her if she disclosed the incident. Similar incidents occurred on 21.03.2014, 08.04.2014, and 08.07.2014. The prosecutrix eventually disclosed the matter to her friends and later to her mother, leading to the registration of an FIR. The trial court convicted the appellant, sentencing him to 10 years rigorous imprisonment for rape, one year for criminal intimidation, and six months for voluntarily causing hurt, with all sentences to run concurrently. The appellant appealed against the conviction and sentence. The High Court examined the evidence, including the testimony of the prosecutrix, medical evidence, and the explanation for delay in filing the FIR. The court found the prosecutrix's testimony to be credible, consistent, and corroborated by medical evidence showing injuries to her private parts. The delay in lodging the FIR was satisfactorily explained by the prosecutrix's fear of her father and family pressure. The court held that the conviction was sustainable and the sentence was proportionate, dismissing the appeal and confirming the trial court's judgment.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Rape of Minor Daughter - Section 376(2) IPC - Testimony of Prosecutrix - The sole testimony of the prosecutrix, if found credible and trustworthy, is sufficient to base a conviction for rape, even without corroboration. In this case, the prosecutrix's evidence was consistent, natural, and corroborated by medical evidence showing injuries to her private parts. The court held that the trial court rightly convicted the appellant. (Paras 10-15) B) Criminal Law - Delay in FIR - Section 376(2) IPC - Delay in lodging FIR is not fatal if satisfactorily explained. The prosecutrix delayed reporting due to fear of the accused, who was her father, and due to family pressure. The court held that such delay is natural and does not affect the credibility of the prosecution case. (Paras 16-18) C) Criminal Law - Sentencing - Section 376(2) IPC - Rape of minor daughter by father is a heinous crime warranting deterrent punishment. The sentence of 10 years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.5000 was upheld as proportionate and not excessive. (Paras 19-20)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellant under Sections 376(2), 506, and 323 IPC is sustainable based on the evidence on record.
Final Decision
Appeal dismissed. Conviction and sentence under Sections 376(2), 506, and 323 IPC confirmed. All sentences to run concurrently.
Law Points
- Conviction under Section 376(2) IPC for rape of minor daughter by father
- Testimony of prosecutrix alone sufficient for conviction if credible
- Corroboration not essential but present in medical evidence
- Delay in FIR explained by fear and family pressure
- Sentence of 10 years RI upheld.
