Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
V.M.Deshpande, Amit B.Borkar, JJ.
Govind Burla Pungati – Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 57/2019, 654/2019
Decided On : 21-03-2022
POCSO - Conviction under Ss. 363, 366 read with Sec. 34 and Sec. 376(D) of the IPC and under Sec. 6 of the POCSO - [Ss. 363, 366, 376(D), 6 of IPC and POCSO] - The court found that the prosecution had properly proved the date of birth of the victim as 24/4/2003, making her a child within the meaning of Sec. 2(d) of the POCSO Act. The court also held that the evidence of the victim was trustworthy and unblemished, and her version was found to be credible, leading to the conviction of the accused. The court dismissed the appeals and ordered the appellants to undergo all sentences concurrently.
Fact of the Case:
The appeals arose from a judgment and order of conviction passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gadchiroli in POCSO Trial No. 19/2017. The appellants were convicted for offences punishable under Ss. 363, 366 read with Sec. 34 and Sec. 376(D) of the IPC and under Sec. 6 of the POCSO Act. The appellants claimed that the victim's age was not properly proved and that they were falsely implicated in the crime.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution had properly proved the date of birth of the victim as 24/4/2003, making her a child within the meaning of Sec. 2(d) of the POCSO Act. The court also held that the evidence of the victim was trustworthy and unblemished, and her version was found to be credible, leading to the conviction of the accused.
Issues: The issues included the age of the victim and the alleged false implication of the appellants in the crime.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the evidence of the victim, medical evidence, and the testimony of prosecution witnesses to establish the guilt of the accused. It emphasized the trustworthiness of the victim's evidence and the corroborative nature of the medical evidence.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeals and ordered the appellants to undergo all sentences concurrently.
JUDGMENT
V.M.DESHPANDE, J. - These two appeals are heard simultaneously and they are decided by this common judgment because both these appeals are arising out of judgment and order of conviction passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gadchiroli in POCSO Trial No. 19/2017.
2. The appeal No. 57/2019 is filed by appellant - Govind S/o Burla Pungati who was accused No. 1 and appeal No. 654/2019 is filed by appellant - Vinod S/o Bandu Gedam who was accused No. 2 as per the charge in POCSO Case No. 19/2017. They stand convicted by the impugned judgment for offence punishable under Ss. 363, 366 read with Sec. 34 and Sec. 376(D) of the Indian Penal Code ('IPC') and under Sec. 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 ('POCSO'). However, learned Additional Sessions Judge in view of Sec. 42 of the POCSO Act, did not record the sentence under Sec. 6 of the POCSO Act. Offence punishable under Sec. 363 read with Sec. 34 of the IPC, both were sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000.00 with default clause. Similarly, offence punishable under Sec. 366 read with Sec. 34 of IPC, they were sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000.00 with default clause. In so far as Sec. 376(D) is concerned, sentence is 20 years and fine of Rs.8,000.00.
3. In these appeals, for these two appellants, Mr. N. M. Kolhe, learned counsel is appearing. He is appointed by the High Court Legal Services Sub-Committee, Nagpur and Shri M. K. Pathan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor is appearing for the State.
4. According to the learned counsel for the appellants, age of the victim is not properly proved, therefore it cannot be said that she was a child within the meaning of provision of the POCSO Act. It is also his submission that two witnesses are not examined by the prosecution, though their statements were recorded under Sec. 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code. It is also his submission that the appellants are falsely implicated in crime. According to him, one Vinod Madavi, Pramod Kudiyami have committed rape on victim and the appellants are falsely implicated. He therefore, submits that the appeals to be allowed.
5. Per-contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State has vehemently opposed the submission. He submits that the prosecution has duly proved the age of the victim. In order to buttress his submission, he placed reliance on the authoritative pronouncement of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Harpal Singh and another Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, reported in (1981) 1 SCC 560. He also submitted that the evidence of victim would show that she has not falsely implicated the appellants. According to him, the cumulative effect of the reading of the prosecutrix version would inspire the confidence in the judicial mind. Inasmuch as according to him, her version is trustworthy and therefore, it can be made basis for conviction. He prayed for that both these appeals be dismissed.
6. PW-9 - Ravikiran Agatrao Kadam was attached to the Dhodraj outpost Police Station, Bhamragarh, District Gadchiroli as Police Sub-Inspector on 5/3/2017. On the same day, the report was received from Bhamragarh Police Station vide FIR No. 00/2017 for offence under Sec. 376 of the IPC and under Ss. 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act. The said was bearing signature of Police Sub-Inspector Ralebhat which was identified by Police Sub-Inspector Ravikiran Kadam. The said FIR is at Exh. 46. On the basis of said, the offence was registered vide C.R. No. 01/2017 at Laheri Police Station, District Gadchiroli. The said is at Exh. 47.
7. Oral report with the Police Station Bhamragarh was given by Bichchhu Pungati (PW-2). It is dtd. 5/3/2017. This Bichchhu Pungati is father of victim. Oral report as given by him is at Exh. 9. From the recital of the said, it is clear that the incident of rape on her was narrated by the victim to her father.
8. The victim was taken to the Rural Hospital a
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of proving the age of the victim in cases under the POCSO Act and the reliance on the trustworthy and unblemished evidence of the vi....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the significance of establishing the victim's minority and the credibility of testimonies in cases of sexual offenses against minors.
Penetrative sexual assault on girl – Age of victim is a crucial factor in POCSO cases.
The prosecution failed to establish the victim's age as a child under the POCSO Act, leading to the quashing of the conviction due to insufficient evidence and credibility issues.
The victim's testimony, if found reliable, can form the sole basis for conviction under the POCSO Act, and legal presumption against the accused places the burden of rebuttal on the defense.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
