Back
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR
DEBANGU BASAK, BIBHAS RANJAN DE, JJ.
S. Meganathan – Appellant
Versus
The State – Respondent
C.R.A. (DB) 3 of 2023, IA No. CRAN 2 of 2023
Decided on : 03-05-2024
(A) Indian Penal Code - Section 376(2)(f) - Conviction for rape of a minor - The appellant was convicted and sentenced to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 10,000/- for the rape of a six-year-old girl, with the court emphasizing the need for sensitivity in handling such cases. (Paras 1, 33, 34, 41, 46)
(B) Evidence - Credibility of victim's testimony - The court held that the testimony of the minor victim must be given due weight, and minor contradictions in her statement do not undermine the prosecution's case. (Paras 42, 43)
Facts of the case:
The appellant was accused of raping a six-year-old girl while she was left alone at home. The mother discovered the incident upon returning home and reported it to the police.
Findings of Court:
The court found the evidence of the victim and her mother credible, corroborated by medical reports, leading to the conviction of the appellant.
Issues: The main issues included the credibility of the victim's testimony and the adequacy of the evidence presented by the prosecution.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the evidence of a minor victim is to be treated with sensitivity and should not be dismissed due to minor discrepancies. The conviction was upheld based on the consistent testimony of the victim and corroborative evidence.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
1. This appeal impugns the judgement and order of conviction passed on 12th day of September, 2022 and 13th day of September, 2022 respectively passed by the Ld. Judge in Special Case No. 16 of 2013 corresponding to Special Trial No. 48 of 2015 under Section 376 (2) (f) of the Indian Penal Code (for short IPC).
2. In view of the guidelines set by the Hon’ble Apex Court Governing this kind of scenarios, we will consciously avoid to divulge into the particulars of the survivor (for short X), witnesses and the Police Station, Hospital, other places including place of occurrence.
3. The appellant has been convicted by the Ld. Judge in connection with Special Case No. 16 of 2013 as under:-
|
| Particulars of Accused/Appellant | ||
| Section | Sentence | Fine | Sentence in default of fine |
| 376(2) (f) of the IPC | 10 years of rigorous imprisonment | Rs. 10,000/- | Six months of rigorous imprisonment |
Background:-
4. The facts as reflected in the judgment of the Trial Judge stand as follows:-
One statement of the mother of X was recorded by the duty officer on 23.07.2012 which was treated as complaint and was registered at the concerned Police Station under specific FIR dated 23.07.2012 under Section 376 of the IPC.
5. The mother of X alleged inter alia that she used to reside in a rented house. On that very day i.e. 23.07.2012 she along with her husband went to Hospital for her medical checkup after leaving her six years old daughter at home alone. When she returned at about 1.30 P.M., she noticed that the door of her house was open and upon entering she noticed stains of blood on the floor of her house at different places. She also noticed that her daughter/X was sitting on the bed crying. Thereafter, the defacto complainant/mother of X inquired from her daughter about the blood stains and in reply X told her that the accused (for short A) came to their house when she was all alone and committed rape. As a result of which she suffered severe pain and blood oozed out from her private part. X also added that when she screamed, A left her and wiped blood with a cloth and left their house.
6. On the basis of the said complaint Police took up investigation and upon completion of investigation submitted charge sheet under Section 376 of the IPC against A.
Charges:-
7. Ld. Trial Judge framed charged under Section 376(2) (i) of the IPC read with Section 5 (m) of POCSO Act against A. To which A pleaded not guilty.
Evidence of the Case:-
8. To prove the charge the prosecution side examined as many as fifteen (15) witnesses which stand as follows:-
| Hospital Official attached to OPD | as PW1 |
| Resident of Bathubasit | as PW2 |
| Attending Medical Officer of the Hospital | as PW3 |
| Lady Police Constable attached to concerned P.S. as PW4 |
|
| Mother of X | as PW5 |
| X | as PW6 |
| Police Home guard | as PW7 |
| Police Constable | as PW8 |
| Head Constable of Police | as PW9 |
| Police Inspector | as PW10 |
| Police Personnel | as PW11 |
| Another Head Constable of Police | as PW12 |
| Police Personnel attached to concerned P.S. | as PW13 |
| Medical Officer | as PW14 |
| Sub Inspector of Police | as PW15 |
9. In course of evidence a good number of documents were admitted in evidence which are summarized as below:-
A. Prosecution:-
| Sl. No. | Exhibit No. | Description |
| 1. | Exbt.1/PW1 | Signature of PW1 in the seizure list dated 24.07.2012 introduced by PW1 |
| 2. | Exbt.2/PW3 | Medical examination report, introduced by PW3 |
| 3. | Exbt.2/1/ PW3 | Injury report of accused, introduced by PW3 |
| 4. | Exbt.1/1/ PW 3 | Signature of PW3 in the seizure list dated 24.07.2012 introduced by PW3 |
| 5. | Exbt. 3/PW5 | Signature of PW5 in the seizure list in connection with the seizure of wearing apparels of X, introduced by PW5 |
| 6. | Exbt.4 (collecti | |
AI
The court emphasized that the testimony of a minor victim in sexual assault cases must be treated with sensitivity, and minor inconsistencies do not undermine the prosecution's case.
The court upheld the conviction for sexual assault on a minor, emphasizing the reliability of the victim's testimony and corroborating evidence despite challenges regarding delay and medical findings....
The admissibility of evidence from hostile witnesses and the importance of corroborating evidence in establishing guilt.
The victim's testimony alone can suffice for conviction in rape cases, as corroboration is not mandatory if the testimony is credible.
The conviction for rape can be upheld based solely on the victim's credible testimony, without the need for corroboration, unless significant doubts arise.
Victim's testimony in sexual assault cases is given significant weight, and investigative irregularities do not automatically invalidate credible evidence.
The court upheld the conviction of both appellants for gang rape, affirming that witness credibility and minor inconsistencies do not undermine the prosecution's case.
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
