Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Paresh @ Kamlesh Prakash Dhanvatkar, was convicted by the Sessions Court, Nagpur in Special Child Criminal Case No.154 of 2015 for offences under Section 354B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Sections 8 and 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act). He was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 4 years and 3 years respectively with fines. The prosecution case was that on 17/05/2015 at about 12:30 p.m., the appellant took the victim, a minor girl, behind Hanuman Temple, kissed her on lips and cheeks, and showed his private part to her. The victim (PW2) narrated the incident to her mother (PW1) when she returned from the market. The mother initially hesitated to report due to fear of defamation but eventually lodged an FIR on 21/05/2015, resulting in a 4-day delay. The appellant was arrested on 22/05/2015. The trial court found the prosecution case proved beyond reasonable doubt based on the testimony of the child victim and other witnesses. The appellant appealed to the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench, challenging the conviction primarily on the ground of delay in FIR registration. The High Court, per Justice Manish Pitale, examined the evidence and found that the delay was satisfactorily explained by the complainant's fear of defamation, which is a valid explanation in cases of sexual offences against minors. The court also found the testimony of the child victim (PW2) to be natural, consistent, and credible, and held that it could be relied upon without corroboration. The court further held that the appellant's acts clearly fell within the ambit of Sections 8 and 12 of the POCSO Act and Section 354B IPC. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the conviction and sentence were upheld.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Sexual Assault of Minor - Delay in FIR - The court considered whether a 4-day delay in lodging FIR was fatal. The complainant explained that she was scared of defamation of her daughter. The court held that the delay was satisfactorily explained and did not affect the prosecution case (Paras 5-7). B) Evidence Law - Testimony of Child Witness - Credibility - The court examined the testimony of the child victim (PW2) and found it consistent and credible. The court held that the child's testimony could be relied upon without corroboration as she was a natural and truthful witness (Paras 8-10). C) Criminal Law - Offences under POCSO Act and IPC - Sections 8 and 12 of POCSO Act, 2012 and Section 354B IPC - The court found that the appellant's act of kissing the child on lips and cheeks and showing his private part constituted sexual assault under Section 8 and sexual harassment under Section 12 of POCSO Act, and also an offence under Section 354B IPC. The conviction was upheld (Paras 11-13).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the delay of 4 days in lodging the FIR was fatal to the prosecution case and whether the conviction under Section 354B IPC and Sections 8 and 12 of POCSO Act was sustainable
Final Decision
The appeal was dismissed. The conviction and sentence imposed by the Sessions Court, Nagpur under Section 354B IPC and Sections 8 and 12 of POCSO Act were upheld.
Law Points
- Delay in FIR registration can be condoned if satisfactorily explained
- especially in sexual offences against minors
- Testimony of child victim can be relied upon without corroboration if found credible
- Sections 8 and 12 of POCSO Act
- 2012 and Section 354B IPC apply to acts of sexual assault and showing private parts to a child
