IMPORTANT POINT
The judgment underscores the importance of DNA evidence in sexual assault cases, especially involving vulnerable victims, and affirms the legal protections against such heinous crimes.

JUDGMENT :

1. In this appeal, the challenge is to the judgment and order dated 24.12.2020, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chandrapur, whereby the learned Sessions Judge convicted the accused of the offences punishable under Section 376(2)(j) and 376(2)(l) of the Indian Penal Code (for short, “I.P.C.”) and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 14 years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- and in default to further undergo simple imprisonment for one year.

2. Background facts:-

The informant is the mother of the victim girl. The mother of the victim girl lodged the report on 22.11.2016 at Police Station Mul, District Chandrapur, regarding the rape of her mentally disabled daughter. It is stated that the informant and the victim are residing together. The informant used to leave home at 10.00 a.m. every day for work and return in the evening. The victim girl used to be at home. It is stated that few months, prior to the lodging of report, the informant observed that the victim had not got her period in the months of August, September and October. On 02.11.2016, the informant took the victim to Government Hospital, Mul, for examination. The doctor after conducting urine test of the victim told the informant that the victim was pregnant. The informant inquired about the matter with the victim but on account of her mental condition she was not in a position to relate the incident. The informant, being busy in earning a hand to mouth existence and being alone, did not immediately approach the police.

3. In the report, it is further stated that after some time, as the physical conditions of the victim’s, pregnancy started becoming more pronounced and the victim was unmarried, the informant started fearing for her daughter’s health. The informant again took her to Government Hospital. Dr. Patil examined her and again told the informant that the victim was pregnant. The doctor suggested her to go to the police as the victim was unmarried. The informant ultimately went to the police and lodged the report of rape on her daughter and her pregnancy. In the report, the informant stated that various persons namely, Warlu Mankar, Pintu Raipure, Dilkhush Shrigiriwar used to come to her house, talk to the victim and even provide eatables to the victim in her absence. The informant stated in the report that one out of them, was the culprit. On the basis of this report, crime bearing No.619/2016 was registered against the three persons upon whom the informant had expressed her suspicion.

4. Based on this report, the wheels of the investigation were put into motion. The victim girl was sent to the General Hospital, Chandrapur for examination. After her examination at Government Hospital Chandrapur she was referred to Government Medical Collage and Hospital Nagpur on 29.11.2016. In the Government Hospital, Nagpur, the doctor noticed that the victim was a case of missed abortion. During her examination the victim passed a clot of size 3 cm x 5 cm. It was sealed, labeled and handed over to the police. The blood sample of the victim for DNA analysis was collected. The said clot and blood sample was sent to C.A., Nagpur for analysis. The investigating Officer, after obtaining the order from the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mul carried the suspects to the hospital for collection of their blood samples. Their blood samples for DNA analysis were collected by Medical Officer at Sub District Hospital, Mul. The samples of the victim and the samples of the accused were sent to CA, Nagpur for analysis. CA Nagpur, on analysis of the samples opined that the appellant/accused and victim are the biological parents of the product of the conception of the victim. The report is dated 04.02.2017. The appellant/accused was arrested in this crime. The investigation revealed the involvement of the accused in the crime and which ultimately led to the filing of the charge- sheet against the accused.

5. Learned Additional Sessions Judge framed the char