Direct Ocular Evidence Sufficient for Rape Conviction Despite Delayed FIR and No Medical Proof: Bombay HC

Aurangabad: The Bombay High Court has upheld the conviction of a self-proclaimed occultist under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for raping a six-year-old girl, ruling that consistent direct evidence from witnesses, including parents and an independent observer, is sufficient for a conviction even in the absence of medical evidence and despite a significant delay in lodging the First Information Report (FIR).

The judgment was delivered in Criminal Appeal No. 673 of 2002, challenging the order dated 21-10-2002 passed by the II Additional Adhoc Sessions Judge, Aurangabad, in Sessions Case No. 103 of 2001. While the trial court had acquitted the accused of the charge of murder (Section 302 IPC), it had found him guilty of rape.

Case Background

According to the prosecution, the six-year-old daughter of the informant was unwell. Following a suggestion from his brother, the informant called the accused, who claimed to be a 'Mantrik' (occultist) and offered to treat the child for Rs. 250, suggesting she was possessed. Under the pretext of performing rituals, the accused allegedly committed rape on the minor while alone with her in the room. The child's condition worsened, and she died while being taken to her native village. The parents performed the last rites and later lodged a report with the police in Aurangabad, nearly a month after the incident. The accused was subsequently chargesheeted for offences under Sections 302 and 376 IPC.

Grounds of Appeal

The appellant challenged the conviction under Section 376 IPC primarily on four grounds: 1. Inordinate delay in lodging the FIR. 2. Absence of medical evidence supporting the charge of rape. 3. Allegation of false implication potentially instigated by a local Corporator. 4. Inconsistencies, material omissions, and contradictions in the testimonies of the victim's parents (PW3 and PW4) and independent witness (PW7).

The appellant's counsel argued that the prosecution had failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt, emphasizing that the accused was acquitted of the murder charge on the same set of evidence.

State's Counter-Arguments

The Additional Public Prosecutor (APP) countered the arguments, explaining the delay in FIR by highlighting that the informant was an illiterate person from another district (Latur) working as a Watchman in Aurangabad. After his daughter's death, his priority was to return to his native place for the last rituals before returning to Aurangabad to report the crime. The APP argued that in cases of this nature, a delay with a plausible explanation should not be significant.

Crucially, the APP relied on the direct testimony of the parents (PW3 and PW4) and independent witness PW7, who claimed to have seen the act of rape through gaps in the temporary wall and door of their makeshift house. The APP submitted that their consistent versions about seeing the accused undress the victim and himself and commit the act were reliable and had been accepted by the trial court.

Court's Analysis and Findings

As the first appellate court, the High Court undertook a re-appreciation of the evidence. The court found the testimonies of PW3 (father) and PW4 (mother) to be consistent regarding the accused being called, his performing rituals, sending others out, and their witnessing the act through the gaps. Their account of the victim being disrobed and found naked on the cot after the accused was confronted remained "virtually intact" despite extensive cross-examination.

The court placed significant reliance on the testimony of PW7, an independent witness and mason working nearby, who corroborated the parents' account of seeing the accused committing the act after hearing the victim's shouts. The court noted that PW7 had no reason to falsely implicate the accused.

Addressing the lack of medical evidence, the court acknowledged its absence due to the victim's death and subsequent burial before a police report was filed. However, the court firmly held that "mere absence of medical evidence is no good ground to discard the direct and ocular evidence of parents coupled with evidence of an independent witness regarding rape." Citing established legal principles, the court reiterated that law does not mandate medical corroboration, and a conviction can rest solely on credible direct evidence that inspires confidence.

Regarding the delay in the FIR, the court accepted the explanation provided by the prosecution, attributing it to the informant's illiteracy, his status as an outsider, his focus on his daughter's illness and death, performing rituals at his native place, and subsequently returning to Aurangabad to lodge the report. The court found these circumstances provided a "plausible explanation" and thus, the delay should not be fatal to the prosecution's case.

The court also dismissed other grounds raised, such as the non-examination of the informant's brother or other persons present at the construction site, finding them not crucial enough to dismantle the core prosecution narrative supported by the direct witnesses.

Conclusion

Finding the ocular accounts of PW3, PW4, and PW7 cogently established the charge of rape, the High Court concluded that the trial court's findings were not perverse or illegal. The court held that the prosecution had successfully proven the charge of rape.

Consequently, the Criminal Appeal No. 673 of 2002 was dismissed, upholding the conviction of the accused under Section 376 IPC.