Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY : NAGPUR BENCH
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE G. A. SANAP
Akash S/O Gajanan Rathod - Appellant
Versus
State of Mha. Thr. Pso Ps Borgaon Manju Tq. And Dist.akola And another - Respondent
APEAL/515/2022
Decided On : 03-01-2025
(A) Indian Penal Code - Sections 354, 354-A, 354-D, 452 r/w Section 34, 506(I) - Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 - Sections 7, 8, 11, 12 - Conviction of accused for sexual offences against a minor - Accused no.1 sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for five years for Section 354-A IPC and seven years for Section 7 POCSO Act; accused no.2 acquitted due to lack of evidence. (Paras 1, 20, 26)
(B) Evidence - Credibility of victim's testimony - The court upheld the victim's account as credible and consistent despite the delay in reporting the incident, emphasizing that delay alone cannot discredit trustworthy evidence. (Paras 14, 20)
(C) Acquittal - Insufficient evidence against accused no.2 - The court found no specific role attributed to accused no.2 in the commission of the offences, leading to his acquittal. (Paras 20, 26)
Facts of the case:
The victim, a 14-year-old girl, was subjected to sexual assault by accused no.1, who entered her home and threatened her. Accused no.2 was present but did not participate in the assault. The incident was reported after a delay due to threats from the accused. (Paras 3, 4, 14)
Findings of Court:
The court found the evidence of the victim and her mother credible, leading to the conviction of accused no.1 for specific offences under IPC and POCSO Act, while acquitting accused no.2. (Paras 20, 26)
Issues: The main issues included the credibility of the victim's testimony, the role of accused no.2, and the implications of the delay in reporting the incident. (Paras 14, 20)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the victim's testimony was reliable despite the delay in reporting, and that the evidence did not support the charges against accused no.2. (Paras 14, 20)
Result: Appeals partly allowed; accused no.1 convicted and sentenced, accused no.2 acquitted.
JUDGMENT :
1. These two appeals arise out of the judgment and order dated 03.06.2022, passed by the learned Extra Joint District Judge and Additional Sessions Judge, Akola, in Sessions Trial No. 113/2020 whereby the learned Judge convicted the appellants/accused nos.1 and 2 for the offences punishable under Sections 354, 354-A, 354-D, 452 r/w Section 34 and U/s 506(I) of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 7 punishable under Sec.8 and offence under Sec. 11 punishable under Section 12 of the Protection of the Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as “the POCSO Act” for short). Both the appellants/accused are sentenced as follows :
a] Rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default to suffer SI for three months for the offence punishable under Section 354 of the IPC.
b] Rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default to suffer SI for three months for the offence punishable under Section 354-A of the IPC.
c] Rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default to suffer SI for three months for the offence punishable under Section 354-D of the IPC.
d] Rigorous imprisonment for Seven years and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default to suffer SI for six months for the offence punishable under Section 452 read with Section 34 of the IPC.
e] Rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default to suffer SI for three months for the offence punishable under Section 506(I) of the IPC.
f] Rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default to suffer SI for six months for the offence under Section 7 punishable under Section 8 of the POCSO Act.
g] Rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default to suffer SI for three months for the offence under Section 11 punishable under Section 12 of the POCSO Act.
2. The appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 364/2022 is accused no.2 and the appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 515/2022 is accused no.1. In this judgment, they would be referred as accused no.1 and accused no.2.
3. BACKGROUND FACTS :-
The informant is the mother of the victim girl. The victim girl, on the date of the incident was about 14 years of age. The prosecution case, which can be unfolded from the report and other materials is that the informant with her two daughters is residing at village Khadka, Tah. and Dist. Akola. Accused nos.1 and 2 are the residents of village Khadka. They are residing in the same locality. In the year 2020, the victim was studying in 7th Standard at Chindhaji Maharaj Vidyalaya, Kaulkhed Jahangir. Accused nos. 1 and 2 are friends. It is stated that in the month of January, the victim girl informed her mother that when she had been to the river to fetch water, both the accused followed her. Thereafter, one day, accused no.1 told her that he likes her and wants to marry with her. The victim girl told him that he is like her brother and he should behave like a brother. On being informed about this incident by the victim, the mother went to the parents of accused nos.1 and 2 and requested them to give an understanding to their sons.
4. It is further the case of the prosecution that on 26.08.2020, the informant had gone to Akola for purchasing the clothes for the victim. The birthday of the victim was on 28.08.2020. When the informant returned from Akola, the victim girl narrated the incident occurred with her in the noon. As per the case of the prosecution, at about 12.30 p.m., both the accused came in front of the house of the informant. Accused no.1 pushed the door of the house and entered into the house. Accused no.1 gagged the mouth of the victim and pressed her breasts. The victim raised shouts. Her sister, who was in another room of the house, came out of the room. The accused ran away from the spot. Accused no.1 threatened her with dire consequences in case she disclosed the incident to anybody. The vic
The court upheld the victim's credible testimony in sexual assault cases, emphasizing that delay in reporting does not inherently discredit reliable evidence.
The prosecution failed to prove the offence of stalking under Section 354-D due to insufficient evidence and contradictions in the victim's testimony.
The unshaken testimony of the victim and corroborating witnesses, lack of motive for false implication, and consistent evidence formed the basis for establishing the guilt of the appellant.
The judgment reinforces the legal standards for proving stalking and sexual harassment, particularly in cases involving minors, emphasizing the credibility of victim testimony.
The victim's testimony, corroborated by medical evidence, and lack of enmity between the parties, led to the court's finding of guilt. The accused's young age was not considered a mitigating circumst....
The prosecution must prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt, and any doubt must be resolved in favor of the accused.
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
