Case Note & Summary
The case involves a criminal revision application filed by Raju Deorao Bhurse against his conviction for rape under Section 375 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The applicant was convicted by the Assistant Sessions Judge, Gadchiroli, and his appeal was dismissed by the Sessions Judge, Gadchiroli on 7th March 2007 in Criminal Appeal No. 02 of 2006. The applicant was sentenced to two years imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 3,000. The revision was filed in 2007 and came up for hearing in 2018. The applicant and his counsel remained absent despite service of bailable warrant. The court proceeded with the assistance of the Additional Public Prosecutor. The only dispute in the case was the age of the prosecutrix. The defence claimed she was above 16 years, but the birth certificate (Exh. 27) proved she was born on 30th October 1983, and the incident occurred on 20th January 1999, making her 15 years, 2 months, and 20 days old, i.e., below 16 years. Therefore, her consent was immaterial. The court also considered the defence of delay in lodging the FIR. The victim did not report immediately; she disclosed the incident only when she became unwell and her mother called a doctor, who discovered her pregnancy. The court found this delay natural. The court perused the well-reasoned judgment of the first appellate court and found no merit in the revision. The revision was dismissed.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Rape - Age of Prosecutrix - Section 375 Indian Penal Code, 1860 - The sole dispute was the age of the prosecutrix; the birth certificate (Exh. 27) showed she was born on 30.10.1983 and the incident occurred on 20.01.1999, making her 15 years 2 months 20 days old, i.e., below 16 years. The court held that her consent is immaterial for sexual intercourse as she was a minor. (Paras 2-4) B) Criminal Law - Delay in FIR - Natural Explanation - Section 375 Indian Penal Code, 1860 - The victim did not immediately report the incident; she disclosed it only when she was not feeling well and her mother called a doctor, who discovered pregnancy. The court held that such delay was natural for a young girl and did not affect the prosecution case. (Para 4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the prosecutrix was below 16 years of age at the time of incident, making her consent irrelevant for the offence of rape.
Final Decision
The revision application is dismissed. The conviction and sentence of the applicant under Section 375 IPC are upheld.
Law Points
- Age of prosecutrix determined by birth certificate
- consent of minor below 16 years immaterial for rape
- delay in lodging FIR explained by pregnancy discovery
