Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH
G. A. Sanap, J.
Roshan S/o Purushottam Wankhade - Petitioner (In Amravati jail)
Versus
The State of Maharashtra, Through P.S.O., Police Station, Tiosa, District and ors. – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 572 of 2018, Criminal Appeal No. 477 of 2018
Decided On : 24-07-2024
Criminal - Sexual Offences - IPC Section List - The court discussed Sections 376(D) of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the POCSO Act, emphasizing the definitions of sexual assault and the legal protections for minors, leading to the conviction of the accused based on corroborative evidence.
Fact of the Case:
The victim, a 14-year-old girl, was sexually assaulted by two accused while she was on her way to relieve herself. The incident was reported 37 days later after the victim received medical treatment for injuries sustained during the assault.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the evidence of the victim and her father credible, despite the delay in reporting, and upheld the conviction based on medical evidence, including DNA analysis, which confirmed the victim's pregnancy and the involvement of the accused.
Issues: The main issues included the credibility of the victim's testimony, the significance of the delay in reporting the crime, and the interpretation of the victim's age under the POCSO Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the victim's age was established through documentary evidence, and the delay in reporting was adequately explained, thus not undermining the prosecution's case.
Result: The appeals were dismissed, affirming the convictions of the accused.
JUDGMENT :
G. A. Sanap, J.
1. These two appeals arise out of the judgment and order dated 23.03.2017 passed by the learned Sessions Judge Amravati, and therefore, the same are being disposed of by common Judgment.
2. Appeal No.572/2018 is filed by original accused No.1 and appeal No.477/2018 is filed by original accused No.2. Learned Sessions Judge, vide judgment and order dated 23.03.2017, held the accused/appellants guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 376(D) of the Indian Penal Code (for short “the I.P.C.”) and under Section 3 read with Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short, “ POCSO Act”). On first count i.e. under Section 376-D of the I.P.C., they are sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for twenty years and to pay a fine of Rs.50,000/-, in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year each, and on the second count under Section 3 read with Section 4 of the POCSO Act, they are sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months each.
3. Background facts:-
Before the Sessions Court in Special (POCSO) Case No.6/2014, there were seven accused. The Sessions Judge acquitted accused Nos.3 to 7. Informant (PW-1) is the victim girl. The wheels of the investigation were put into motion on her report dated 12.09.2014. The case of the prosecution, which can be discerned from the report and the accompanying documents, is that the incident in question occurred on 04.08.2014 at about 08.00 p.m. The victim on the date of the incident was 14 years old. She had gone to attend the natures call in the godhari (easing place used by the women of the village). When she was proceeding to attend the nature’s call, near the river accused Nos. 1 to 3 obstructed her. Accused No.2 Nandu Rameshrao Avzad gagged her mouth and accused No.1 Roshan Purushottam Wankhade lifted her. Accused No.3 illuminated the path by using the light. The victim saw the faces of the accused in the light. Accused Nos.1 to 3 took her in the field of one Janrao. Accused No.1 Roshan removed her clothes and committed forcible sexual intercourse with her. Thereafter, accused No.2 Nandu committed sexual intercourse with her. It is stated that again the accused No.1 committed forcible intercourse with her. Acquitted accused No.3 was keeping watch. Accused Nos.1 and 2 continued penetrative sexual assault upon the victim for about one and a half hours. She resisted the accused. Accused No.1 pulled her hand. She had a sprain in her right hand. After the incident, she came to the house. On inquiry by her father as to the inordinate timetaken by her to attend the nature’s call, she narrated the incident to her parents.
4. It is the case of the prosecution that on the next day the acquitted accused No.7 Ramesh Wankhade, came to their house and took her father with him. The victim’s father returned after some time and told that father of accused Nos.1 and accused No.2 had threatened him and directed him not to lodge report of the incident.
5. It is stated that on next day of the incident her father took her to the hospital of Doctor Bhutada at Tiosa. Dr. Bhutada on examination, diagnosed that her right hand was fractured. Father of the victim therefore, took her to Dr. Panjabrao Deshmukh Hospital, Amravati. After taking x-ray the fracture was plastered. The doctor gave an estimate of Rs.18,000/-for further medical treatment. Her father had no money therefore, he returned back. It is further case of the prosecution that her father took her to General Hospital, Amravati, for treatment. She was admitted in the hospital on 08.08.2014. She was an indoor patient till 04.09.2014. After coming back to their village there was flood to the river, and therefore, they could not go to Police Station. On 12.09.2014, the informant went to police with her parents and lodged the report. On the basis of her report, crime bearing No.143/2014 was regi
The judgment reinforces the importance of corroborative evidence in sexual assault cases, particularly when the victim is a minor, and clarifies the legal standards for assessing credibility and dela....
The prosecution must prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt, and any doubt must be resolved in favor of the accused.
The judgment underscores the necessity of credible evidence and the adverse impact of delays in reporting sexual offences on the prosecution's case.
The court affirmed that the testimony of a child victim, supported by medical evidence, is sufficient for conviction under the POCSO Act, even in the presence of a negative DNA report regarding pater....
The prosecution failed to prove the victim's age and the occurrence of the alleged incident beyond reasonable doubt, leading to the appellant's acquittal.
The presumption of guilt under the POCSO Act requires a solid evidentiary foundation, which was not established in this case, leading to the acquittal of the accused.
The court upheld the conviction of a father for sexually assaulting his minor daughter, emphasizing the importance of corroborative evidence and the impact of familial trust on the victim's disclosur....
(1) Delay – Delay per se cannot be the ground to discard and disbelieve the otherwise credible and trustworthy evidence of the prosecution witness. (2) Delay – If the prosecution is able to prove the....
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
