The Bombay High Court dismissed the appeal of Gajanan More, who was convicted under Section 376-AB of the IPC and Sections 4, 6, and 8 of the POCSO Act, 2012. The court upheld the 20 years rigorous imprisonment sentence and a fine of Rs. 2,000. The case involved the sexual assault of an 8-year-old girl. Despite arguments regarding delayed reporting and alleged false implication due to personal enmity, the court found the victim's testimony, corroborated by medical evidence, credible and reliable. The judgment emphasized that the delay in lodging the FIR was reasonably explained, given the rural background and mental trauma of the victim's parents.

1. Background of the Case:

• Victim's Identity: An 8-year-old girl (name withheld), daughter of the informant (PW-1), a laborer.
• Incident Date: March 7, 2020.
• Location: A field in Kavhala, where the victim's mother was working as a laborer.
• Accused: Gajanan More, a neighbor of the victim's family, lured the victim into a maize field under the pretext of holding pipes and committed sexual assault.

2. Incident and Reporting:

• The victim's mother noticed the victim’s underwear was wet when she returned from the field. Initially, the victim claimed it was due to urination but later complained of pain in her private parts.
• On March 8, 2020, the victim disclosed the assault to her mother.
• FIR Registered: On March 9, 2020, the victim's parents lodged an FIR at Police Station Amdapur, leading to the arrest of the accused.

3. Investigation:

• The victim was medically examined, revealing injuries consistent with sexual assault, including torn hymen at specific positions.
• Statements of the victim and her parents were recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C.. The appellant was arrested and charged under Section 376-AB of IPC and relevant sections of the POCSO Act.

Legal Discussion:

1. Sections Involved:

• Section 376-AB of IPC: Punishment for rape of a girl below 12 years.
• POCSO Act, 2012: Sections 4, 6, and 8, which deal with aggravated penetrative sexual assault and punishments for sexual offenses against minors.

2. Key Legal Arguments:

• Appellant's Defense: Alleged false implication due to a land dispute with the victim's mother regarding a common wall.
• Prosecution's Stand: The delay in lodging the report was justified, considering the psychological trauma of the family and the seriousness of the offense.

3. Medical Evidence:

• The medical examination confirmed injuries to the victim's hymen and ruled out other possible causes like playing or finger insertion.

4. Delay in FIR:

• The court rejected the argument that the delay in reporting discredited the victim’s testimony. Given the rural background and mental shock of the parents, the delay was satisfactorily explained.

Ratio Decidendi:

• Credibility of Victim's Testimony: The court emphasized the consistency of the victim's statement before the Magistrate and during the trial. Her testimony was corroborated by medical evidence, which further substantiated the charge.
• No Malafide Motive: The court rejected the defense’s claim of false implication due to enmity over the land dispute, noting that no parent would subject their child to such serious allegations merely for revenge.
• Delay in Reporting: The delay in filing the FIR was considered reasonable, taking into account the family's shock and deliberation over the consequences of reporting the crime.

Subjects:

Sexual Assault, IPC Section 376-AB, POCSO Act, Child Abuse, Bombay High Court, Criminal Appeal, Delayed FIR, Conviction, Medical Evidence.