Bombay High Court Upholds Conviction of Accused in POCSO Case for Kidnapping and Rape of Minor — Victim's Consistent Testimony and Medical Evidence Sufficient to Prove Offences Under Sections 363, 366A, 376(2) IPC and Section 6 of POCSO Act, 2012.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: AURANGABAD In Favour of Prosecution
  • 101
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The appellant, Devanand Rajabhau More, was convicted by the Special Court, Ambajogai, in Special POCSO Case No. 4/2014 for offences under Sections 363, 366A, 376(2) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. The prosecution case was that the victim, a 15-year-old girl studying in 10th standard, was kidnapped by the appellant on 11.12.2013 from her school. The appellant took her to various places including Pandharpur, Solapur, and Tuljapur, and married her at a temple. He had sexual intercourse with her against her will. The victim's mother lodged a missing complaint, and the victim was recovered on 17.12.2013. The trial court convicted the appellant based on the victim's testimony, medical evidence, and other circumstances. The appellant appealed against the conviction. The High Court examined the evidence and found that the victim's testimony was consistent and credible, corroborated by medical evidence showing recent sexual intercourse. The victim was below 16 years of age, and thus her consent was immaterial. The court held that the prosecution had proved all ingredients of the offences beyond reasonable doubt. The appeal was dismissed, and the conviction and sentence were upheld.

Headnote

A) Criminal Law - Kidnapping - Section 363 IPC - Taking away minor from lawful guardianship without consent - Prosecution proved that victim, aged 15 years, was taken away by accused from her school without informing her mother - Held that offence of kidnapping is made out (Paras 10-12).

B) Criminal Law - Kidnapping for marriage - Section 366A IPC - Inducing minor girl to go with accused for marriage - Accused took victim to various places and married her - Held that inducement for illicit intercourse is implicit (Paras 13-15).

C) Criminal Law - Rape - Section 376(2) IPC - Sexual intercourse with minor below 16 years - Victim's testimony consistent and corroborated by medical evidence of recent sexual intercourse - Held that offence of rape is proved (Paras 16-20).

D) Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 - Aggravated penetrative sexual assault - Section 6 - Victim below 16 years - Accused committed penetrative sexual assault - Held that offence under Section 6 is made out (Paras 21-23).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the conviction of the appellant under Sections 363, 366A, 376(2) of IPC and Section 6 of POCSO Act, 2012 is sustainable based on the evidence on record.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The appeal is dismissed. The conviction and sentence passed by the Special Court, Ambajogai, in Special POCSO Case No. 4/2014 on 1.8.2016 are confirmed.

Law Points

  • Consistent testimony of victim
  • medical evidence corroborating sexual intercourse
  • age of victim below 18 years
  • presumption under Section 29 of POCSO Act
  • no consent valid if under 16 years
  • kidnapping without consent established
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2018 LawText (BOM) (10) 32

Criminal Appeal No. 516 of 2016

2018-10-23

Smt. Vibha Kankanwadi

Mr. D. B. Thoke for Appellant, Mr. S. P. Sonpawale, A.P.P. for Respondent/State

Devanand Rajabhau More

State of Maharashtra

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Criminal appeal against conviction for kidnapping, abduction, rape, and aggravated penetrative sexual assault of a minor.

Remedy Sought

Appellant sought acquittal from the conviction and sentence imposed by the Special Court.

Filing Reason

Appellant was convicted by the Special Court, Ambajogai, for offences under Sections 363, 366A, 376(2) IPC and Section 6 of POCSO Act, 2012.

Previous Decisions

Special Court, Ambajogai, convicted the appellant on 1.8.2016 in Special POCSO Case No. 4/2014.

Issues

Whether the prosecution proved that the victim was below 16 years of age? Whether the appellant kidnapped the victim from lawful guardianship? Whether the appellant committed rape on the victim? Whether the appellant committed aggravated penetrative sexual assault under POCSO Act?

Submissions/Arguments

Appellant argued that the victim was a consenting party and that the medical evidence does not prove rape. Prosecution argued that the victim was a minor, her testimony is consistent, and medical evidence corroborates sexual intercourse.

Ratio Decidendi

The consistent testimony of the victim, corroborated by medical evidence, is sufficient to prove the offences of kidnapping, rape, and aggravated penetrative sexual assault. The victim being below 16 years, her consent is immaterial. The prosecution proved all ingredients beyond reasonable doubt.

Judgment Excerpts

The victim girl was taking education with Shri Sandeshwari Vidyalaya, Chanai, Tq. Ambajogai in 10th standard in the year 2013. The victim girl went to school on 11.12.2013 but did not return home. The victim's testimony is consistent and credible. Medical evidence shows recent sexual intercourse. The victim was below 16 years of age, hence consent is immaterial.

Procedural History

The appellant was convicted by the Special Court, Ambajogai, on 1.8.2016 in Special POCSO Case No. 4/2014. He filed Criminal Appeal No. 516 of 2016 before the Bombay High Court, Bench at Aurangabad, challenging the conviction. The appeal was reserved on 17.7.2018 and pronounced on 23.10.2018.

Acts & Sections

  • Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): 363, 366A, 376(2)
  • Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act): 6
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Remands Income Tax Appeal Dismissed as Infructuous Due to Company Dissolution Under Section 560(5) of Companies Act, 1956. High Court Failed to Consider Relevant Provisions of Companies Act and Income Tax Act Regarding Continuing Liabil...
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Dismisses Revision Against Eviction Decree in Rent Control Case — Tenant's Challenge to Attornment and Arrears of Rent Fails. Concurrent findings of fact regarding arrears of rent and forfeiture of tenancy under Sections 15 and 16...