Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Samji s/o Isarya Gavit, was convicted by the Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No. 16 of 2015 for offences under Section 376(2) and Section 313 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and under Sections 5(j)(ii)(l)(n) read with Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act). He was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for ten years for the rape and POCSO offences, and three years for causing miscarriage, with fines and default sentences. The sentences were directed to run concurrently. The appellant appealed against his conviction. The prosecutrix (PW-1) is the daughter of the appellant. She alleged that when she was studying in 7th standard, the appellant committed rape on her repeatedly, resulting in pregnancy. The appellant then forcibly administered rudimentary medicines causing abortion, and threatened her not to disclose the incident. On 20.03.2014, the prosecutrix left the house and took shelter with her maternal aunt, Mina Diwanji Gavit (PW-3), to whom she disclosed the incident. The appellant lodged a missing report on 24.04.2014 and later a kidnapping complaint on 09.05.2015, but the prosecutrix and PW-3 stated she was not kidnapped, leading to withdrawal of the complaint. The appellant also filed a Writ Petition for custody of the prosecutrix. During the proceedings, the prosecutrix disclosed the sexual assault, leading to registration of an FIR. The trial court convicted the appellant. The High Court heard the appeal. The court examined the evidence of the prosecutrix, medical evidence, and other witnesses. The court found the testimony of the prosecutrix to be trustworthy and reliable, and the medical evidence corroborated the sexual assault and abortion. The court held that the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. The court dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction and sentences.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Rape - Section 376(2) IPC - Aggravated Penetrative Sexual Assault - Testimony of Prosecutrix - The prosecutrix, daughter of the accused, alleged that the accused committed rape on her repeatedly when she was in 7th standard, resulting in pregnancy and abortion. The court held that the testimony of the prosecutrix is trustworthy and reliable, and the medical evidence corroborates the sexual assault and abortion. The conviction under Section 376(2) IPC and Section 6 of POCSO Act was upheld. (Paras 1-10) B) Criminal Law - Causing Miscarriage - Section 313 IPC - Abortion - The accused forcibly administered rudimentary medicines to the prosecutrix causing abortion. The court held that the evidence of the prosecutrix and medical evidence clearly establish the offence under Section 313 IPC. The conviction was upheld. (Paras 1-10) C) Criminal Law - Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 - Sections 5(j)(ii)(l)(n) r/w 6 - Aggravated Penetrative Sexual Assault - The accused, being the father of the victim child, committed penetrative sexual assault repeatedly. The court held that the ingredients of aggravated penetrative sexual assault are fully satisfied. The conviction under Section 6 of POCSO Act was upheld. (Paras 1-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellant under Sections 376(2) and 313 of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 5(j)(ii)(l)(n) read with Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 is sustainable based on the evidence on record.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction and sentences imposed by the Sessions Judge. The sentences were directed to run concurrently.
Law Points
- Testimony of prosecutrix in sexual offences is sufficient for conviction if found credible
- even without corroboration
- Medical evidence can corroborate sexual assault and abortion
- POCSO Act provisions for aggravated penetrative sexual assault apply when victim is child and perpetrator is relative
- Section 313 IPC for causing miscarriage without consent is made out when accused administers abortifacient
- Sentences to run concurrently when multiple offences arise from same transaction
