IMPORTANT POINT
Rape and criminal intimidation of minor girl – Once prosecution proves core and fundamental facts which lead to proof of act of commission of offence, presumption can be raised in view of Section 29 of POCSO Act and it is for accused to rebut the same.

JUDGMENT

Appellant/convict takes exception to the judgment and order dated 07.06.2022 passed in Special Case No.16 of 2014, whereby the Appellant came to be convicted for the offences punishable under Section 376(2)(i), 506 of IPC and Section 6 and 10 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences, Act 2012 (‘POCSO’ for short), sentenced to suffer maximum sentence of imprisonment of 10 years with fine, with default sentence.

2. First informant i.e. mother of the victim lodged report to the Ghatkopar Police Station informing about the occurrence of the incident prior to 4 days of lodging of the report. According to the informant, on 26.08.2013 victim complained to her mother about stomach pain. On questioning her about the reason for the same, she disclosed that prior to 4 days a man residing in front of the house called her on the pretext of giving food articles. He thereafter, removed her clothes and committed sexual intercourse with her. Informant further states that her husband came back home at about 09.00 p.m. and thereafter, he called his brother. On the advice of his brother, they went to the police station and lodged report. Investigation was carried out by a woman police officer. Victim was sent for medical examination. Statement of the witnesses were recorded under Sections 161 and 164 of Cr.PC. Spot panchanama was done. Seized muddemal was sent to CA for examination. On conclusion of investigation, chargesheet came to be filed before the competent Court. The charge was framed. The accused denied the charges.

3. The prosecution examined the following witnesses to prove the offence against the accused. PW-1Gayatri Ravindra Gavali, PW-2 Anita Ravindra Gavali, PW-3 Ravindra Jayhari Gawali, PW-4 Rajesh Prakash Thakur, PW-5 Sultana Akhtar Baig, PW-6 Mrs. Kamal Madhav Nanaware and PW-7 Dr. Kiran Yadav.

4. Apart from the oral evidence, reliance is also placed on documentary evidence such as first information report, medical examination report, spot panchanama, panchanama of seizure of clothes of victim and accused, CA reports etc. The Trial Court accepted the evidence laid by the prosecution and recorded judgment of conviction against the accused.

5. Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that the Trial Court has not appreciated the evidence on record in proper perspective. It is his submission that the victim has not given the date as well as the time of occurrence of the incident and her testimony is not only inconsistent with her previous statement, but is also inconsistent with the evidence of informant. It is argued that even medical examination discloses no sign of any external injuries, nor genital injuries were found. It is his submission that the medical officer has not given any opinion with regard to the victim being sexually abused. It is submitted that the other evidence laid by the prosecution in the form of testimony of PW-5, Smt. Baig is not supporting the case of the prosecution and that there is reason for this witness to depose falsely against the accused. It is his submission that the evidence of victim cannot be called as a evidence of a sterling quality in order to place reliance upon the same and in absence of any corroborating evidence, this is the fit case for acquittal of the accused. To support its submissions, he placed reliance on judgment of Supreme Court in case of Nirmal Premikumar and Another v. State [Cr. Appeal No. 1098/2024] and Rai Sandip alias Deepu v. State [(2012) 8 S.C.C. 21].

6. The learned APP and learned counsel for Respondent No. 2 supported the impugned judgment and order. It is their contention that the Court has to take into consideration the age of the victim while assessing her evidence. It is submitted that minor discrepancies even if occurring in the evidence of the victim cannot become a ground for acquittal of the accused. According to them, the defence was not in a position to show any specific reason for false implication of the accused. It is submitted that diff