Case Note & Summary
The case involves an appeal against the conviction of Gajanan More for the rape of an 8-year-old girl under Section 376-AB IPC and Sections 4, 6, and 8 of the POCSO Act. The incident occurred on 07.03.2020 when the victim was playing near a cattle shed while her mother worked in a field. The appellant called the victim to help him hold pipes, took her to a maize field, removed her underwear and his own, and committed sexual intercourse. The victim cried and was threatened by the appellant. Later, the victim complained of pain, and her mother noticed swelling and redness. The FIR was lodged on 09.03.2020 after the mother consulted her husband. The appellant was convicted and sentenced to 20 years imprisonment. On appeal, the court examined the delay in FIR, the credibility of the child witness, medical evidence, and the defence of false implication. The court found the delay satisfactorily explained by the parents' rustic background and trauma. The victim's testimony was natural and consistent, and the medical evidence corroborated the assault. The court upheld the conviction and sentence, dismissing the appeal.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Rape of Minor - Delay in FIR - The delay of two days in lodging the FIR was satisfactorily explained by the rustic background of the parents, the trauma of the incident, and the need to consider consequences before reporting. The court held that delay per se is not a ground to disbelieve the prosecution case if the explanation is plausible (Paras 12-15). B) Criminal Law - POCSO Act - Testimony of Child Victim - The testimony of the 8-year-old victim was found to be natural, consistent, and credible. The court held that the evidence of a child victim, if trustworthy, can be the sole basis for conviction without corroboration (Paras 16-18). C) Criminal Law - Medical Evidence - Corroboration - The medical evidence showing swelling and redness of the private part, along with the doctor's opinion that the injury could be caused by forceful penetration, corroborated the victim's version. The court rejected the defence argument that the injury could be self-inflicted or caused by a finger (Paras 19-21). D) Criminal Law - Sentencing - Section 376-AB IPC - The appellant was sentenced to 20 years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.2,000/- for committing penetrative sexual assault on a child below 12 years. The court upheld the sentence as appropriate given the gravity of the offence (Paras 22-24).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellant under Section 376-AB IPC and Sections 4, 6, 8 of the POCSO Act is sustainable on the basis of the evidence on record, particularly in light of the alleged delay in lodging the FIR and the medical evidence.
Final Decision
The appeal is dismissed. The judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Buldhana dated 30.08.2021 is confirmed.
Law Points
- Delay in lodging FIR in sexual offences against children is not fatal if satisfactorily explained
- Medical evidence corroborating penetrative sexual assault
- Testimony of child victim if credible can be sole basis for conviction
- Section 376-AB IPC applies when victim is below 12 years
- Sections 4
- 6
- 8 POCSO Act apply for aggravated penetrative sexual assault
