IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA(CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR)
SOUMEN SEN, BIBEK CHAUDHURI, JJ.
Shri Swapan Mondal - Appellant
Versus
The State - Respondent
CRA No. 015 of 2019
Decided on : 29-06-2021
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 - Sections 5/6 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 376(2)(i)/506 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 164 - Sexual Offences - Appeal against conviction - Burden of proof - Victim/prosecutrix made a statement before On-duty police that on date of making such statement, she was a student of class eighth in Government Middle School, husband of her elder sister came to their house one day about five months before date of lodging the complaint and told her that he was going for fishing in sea and requested her to stay with her elder sister in his house - Prosecutrix stayed with her elder sister during said night - Accused returned home in a drunken condition late at night and forcefully committed rape upon her - Her elder sister objected to such act of her husband but offender assaulted her and threatened both of them with dire consequences - After said incident, above named offender committed aggravated penetrative sexual assault upon prosecutirx for several times threatening her of dire consequence - As a result, she became pregnant - Whether foundational facts have been established for accused to be burdened with reverse burden of proof.
Finding of the Court:
It is settled that testimony of a victim in cases of sexual offence is vital and unless there are compelling reasons which necessitate looking for corroboration, court should unhesitatingly act on such testimony of the victim of sexual assault alone to convict the accused - statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C, in fact, alleges sexual intercourse between victim and accused over a period of time. Hence, to conclude that date of offence has to be restricted to August/September, 2014 is unsupported by evidence - Failure to conduct DNA test is not fatal as there could be more than one reason for victim not to agree to such a test. In this trial, we are not concerned with paternity of child. The victim has been able to establish at trial factum of a penetrative sexual assault - a ‘presumption’ is a probable consequence drawn from facts as to the truth of a fact alleged and a ‘presumption of fact’ is an inference as to existence of one fact drawn from other facts (either certain, or proved by direct testimony) as to truth of fact alleged - Burden of proof falls squarely on the accused-appellant to rebut said presumptions on balance of probabilities, there is nothing in evidence that discharges said burden and arguments of Mr. Illango stand negated.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
BIBEK CHAUDHURI, J.
1. Judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed in Special Case No.17 of 2015/ Sessions Trial No.17 of 2015 passed by the learned Special Judge (POCSO), Andaman and Nicobar Islands, Port Blair under section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 is under challenge in the instant appeal.
2. That on 13.01.2015, the victim/prosecutrix made a statement before the On-duty police personnel at Kishori Nagar, Primary Health Centre stating, inter alia, that on the date of making such statement, she was a student of class eighth in Government Middle School, Paschim Sagar within Kalighat P.S. One Swapan Mondal, the husband of her elder sister Purnima Mondal came to their house one day about five months before the date of lodging the complaint and told her that he was going for fishing in the sea and requested her to stay with her elder sister in his house. The prosecutrix stayed with her elder sister during the said night. The accused Swapan Mondal returned home in a drunken condition late at night and forcefully committed rape upon her. Her elder sister objected to such act of her husband but the offender assaulted her and threatened both of them with dire consequences. After the said incident, the abovenamed offender committed aggravated penetrative sexual assault upon the prosecutirx for several times threatening her of dire consequence. As a result, she became pregnant. On 13.01.2015, she went to Kishorinagar Primary Health Centre for medical check up with her elder brother-in-law Kausik Sarkar. The doctor diagnosed her and informed that the prosecutrix was pregnant for five months. On being asked, she disclosed the incident to her mother. On the basis of the said statement made by the prosecutirx, police registered Kalighat P.S. Case No.5 of 2015 dated 30.01.2015 under section 376(2)(i)/506 of the Indian Penal Code and sections 5/6 of the POCSO Act, 2012.
3. The investigation of the above numbered P.S.Case ended with filing of charge sheet against the accused/appellant Swapan Mondal. Since the case was exclusively triable by the Special Court under the POCSO Act, it was committed to the Court of learned Special Judge, POCSO, Andaman and Nicobar Islands at Port Blair for trial.
4. The learned Trial Judge framed charge against the appellant under section 5(j)(ii)(l)(n) /6 of the POCSO Act, 2012 against the accused/appellant. When the charge was read over and explained to him, he pleaded not guilty. Therefore, trial of the case commenced.
5. In order to prove the charge against the accused, the prosecution examined in all ten witnesses. Series of documents were marked as exhibits which we propose to refer subsequently in the body of the judgment.
6. The learned Trial Judge, upon consideration of the evidence on record, found the accused Swapan Mondal guilty for committing offence under section 5(n) of the POCSO Act. Accordingly, he was convicted and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default further simple imprisonment for six months for the offence punishable under section 6 of the POSCO Act.
7. The aforesaid judgment and order of conviction is assailed in the instant appeal.
8. During trial, the defacto complainant deposed as PW-1. She stated in her evidence that about five months before she was medically treated at Kishori Nagar Primary Heath Centre, the appellant committed rape upon her in his house at night forcibly. At the time of committing rape, her elder sister Purnima was sitting outside the room. She also stated that her brother-in-law committed rape upon her on several occasions. However, she could not say the dates of commission of such offence.
9. It is found from the evidence of the mother of the prosecutrix (PW-1) that one day, she took her youngest daughter to the Primary Health Centre as she was suffering from fever. After examination, the Doctor told her that her daughter was pregnant. On being asked, she came
State of Orissa Vs. Thakara Besra & Anr. AIR 2002 SC 1963
Abdul Rashid Ibrahim Mansuri v. State of Gujarat
Bhupinder Sharma v. State of Himachal Pradesh
Dhanvantrai Balwantrai Desai v. State of Maharashtra
Krishan Kumar Malik v. State of Haryana
Laxmi Dyechem v. State of Gujarat
M/s. Meters and Instruments Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. Kanchan Mehta
Narayan Govind Gavate and Ors v. State of Maharashtra
Navin Dhaniram Baraye v. the State of Maharashta
Otto George Gfeller v. The King
Rai Sandeep @ Deepu vs. State of NCT of Delhi
Raju v. State of Madhya Pradesh
Sait Tarajee Khimchand vs. Yelamarti Satyam
State of U.P. v. Ram Kumar reported in 2017(14) SCC 614
State of U.P. Vs. Pappu @ Yunus & Anr. AIR 2005 SC 1248
Syad Akbar v. the State of Karnataka
State of Maharashtra Vs. Chandraprakash Kewalchand Jain AIR 1990 SC 658
State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Raghubir Singh (1993) 2 SCC 622
State of Punjab Vs. Gurmit Singh
Sexual Offence - Conviction upheld - Testimony of a victim in cases of sexual offence is vital and unless there are compelling reasons which necessitate looking for corroboration, court should unhesi....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the critical appreciation of the victim's testimony in a sexual assault case, the burden of proof on the accused to establish the absence of culpab....
Point of law: Conviction upheld - In the absence of cogent evidence brought on record to prima-facie establish the foundational facts, conviction of the accused cannot be based solely on presumption ....
The sole testimony of the prosecutrix can be the sole basis for conviction in cases of sexual offences, and there is no legal compulsion to seek corroboration of her statement, as long as it inspires....
The presumption of guilt under Section 29 of the POCSO Act is not absolute and requires the prosecution to establish foundational facts before the burden shifts to the accused to rebut the presumptio....
The court ruled that without credible evidence or reliable testimony, suspicion alone cannot support a conviction under the POCSO Act.
Prosecution must establish foundational facts beyond reasonable doubt; mere reliance on victim’s inconsistent testimony is insufficient for conviction.
The need for corroboration of evidence, especially in cases involving child witnesses, and the rebuttable nature of the presumption under Section 29 of the POCSO Act.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.