Victim testimony and forensic evidence can sustain conviction under sexual offence laws.

JUDGMENT :

MANOJ KUMAR OHRI, J.

1. The present appeal filed under Section 374 (2) read with Section 482 Cr.P.C., has been instituted assailing the order of conviction dated 02.08.2023 vide which he has been convicted for offences punishable under 342/365/506/376 of IPC and Section 4 of the POCSO Act and order of sentence dated 15.09.2023 in Sessions Case No. 55/2018 arising out of FIR No.355/2017 registered under Sections 367/376/506/342 IPC & Section 6 of POCSO Act at P.S. Khyala. Vide order on sentence, while granting benefit of Section 428 CrPC, the appellant was sentenced to undergo:

(i) Rigorous Imprisonment (RI) for 20 years with a fine of Rs.5,000/- for the offence under Section 376 (2)(i) IPC, in case of default to pay fine, he shall undergo Simple Imprisonment (SI) for 5 Months;

(ii) RI for 5 years with a fine of Rs.2,000/- for the offence under Section 365 IPC, in case of default to pay fine, he shall undergo SI for 2 Months;

(iii) RI for 2 years for the offence under Section 506 IPC; and (iv) RI 1 year for the offence under Section 342 IPC.

2. The trial court collated the facts and noted them as under:

“1. On 01.12.2017, victim along with her parents went to PS Khyala and reported the offence of rape whereafter IO/SI Satyawati took the victim along with her month to DDU hospital where the victim was medically examined and her exhibits were seized. Thereafter IO along with victim and her mother came back to PS and IO deposited the exhibits in the malkhana. Thereafter victim was given counselling and her statement was recorded by the IO. She stated that she is 13 years old, studying in eighth standard and she was not feeling well on that day and had not attended school. She further stated that at about 11:30 AM, she was going to the house of her grandmother (nani), which was at a distance of few meters from her house. She stated that on the way she met accused Pawan, who kept a cloth on her month from behind and took her to his home and also threatened her to kill her in case she disclosed about it to anyone. She also stated that he took off her pajama, pressed her neck and also threatened to kill her and also committed rape on her. She further stated that thereafter she came back home at about 1:30 PM and she called her father from the phone of some person. Her father and her maternal uncle (mama) reached house of the accused and took him to police station and victim, her grandmother and mother also reached the PS. She also stated that accused is the person who was a tenant in the house of her grandmother and had vacated the house a day before the incident and had taken a new house. On the basis of this statement, the present FIR under section 367, 376, 506, 340 IPC and 6 of POCSO Act was registered.”

3. During the trial, the prosecution examined a total of 15 witnesses, including the child victim as PW-1, mother and father of the child victim as PW-2 & PW-3 respectively, the grandmother (nani) of child victim as PW-4 and uncle of the child victim was examined as PW-13.

The age of the child victim was proved through the testimony of the Principal (PW-5) of the school where the child was admitted in the Nursery class. Her age at the time of incident was 13 years. To prove the MLC of the child victim, the prosecution examined Dr Naved Lone as PW-6 and Dr Pankit Ghelani as PW-7. The Investigating Officer (IO) i.e., SI Satyavati, was examined as PW-14, while Head Constable Krishan was examined as PW-15.

4. The appellant, while denying the prosecution’s case, claimed it to be a case of false implication. Apart from examining himself under Section 315 Cr.P.C. as DW-3, the appellant also examined two witnesses in support i.e., appellant’s wife as DW-1 and his brother as DW-2. The prosecution’s case is also stated to be an afterthought, as the appellant, despite being already known to the victim, was no