Back
2023 Supreme(Telangana) 449
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
K. SURENDER, J.
Kathula Vasu – Appellant
Versus
The State of Telangana – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 783 of 2023
Decided On : 09-11-2023
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: M.V. Venu.
The need for corroborative evidence and the specific requirements for establishing sexual assault and rape under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and the Indian Penal Code.
Headnote:
Rape - Sexual Assault - Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 - Section 3, Section 4, Section 5, Section 7, Section 8
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted for the offence of rape under Section 3 read with Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. The victim, a 14-year-old girl, alleged that the appellant forcibly raped her. The medical examination did not provide conclusive evidence of recent sexual intercourse.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that there was no corroborative medical evidence to support the prosecution's case. The conviction under Section 6 of the Act of 2012 was set aside, and the appellant was convicted under Section 8 of the Act and sentenced to three years of rigorous imprisonment.
Issues: The issues revolved around the sufficiency of evidence to establish the offence of rape under the Act and the interpretation of the statutory provisions defining sexual assault.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court emphasized the need for corroborative evidence in cases of sexual assault, especially when the victim is a child. It highlighted the specific requirements under the Act of 2012 and the Indian Penal Code for establishing penetrative sexual assault and rape.
Final Decision: The appellant's conviction under Section 6 of the Act of 2012 was set aside, and he was convicted under Section 8 of the Act and sentenced to three years of rigorous imprisonment.
JUDGMENT :
K. SURENDER, J.
1. This Criminal Appeal is filed aggrieved by the judgment in SC POCSO No. 190 of 2022 dated 10.08.2023 passed by the Special Judge for Expeditious trial and Disposal of Rape and Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act Cases at Mahabubabad wherein, the appellant was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 20 years for the offence under Section 3 read with Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences At, 2012 (for short “the Act”).
2. The case of the prosecution is that PW-2, who is the victim girl was aged around 14 years when the incident had taken place. According to PW-2, she went to the house of her senior paternal uncle namely Vijaya Bhaskar. On 05.09.2022, complaint was lodged by the father of the victim girl, who was examined as PW-1, that the victim girl was kept in his brother’s house as he was undergoing treatment. PW-1 went to his house after treatment and found that the victim girl who came back from his brother’s place was not active and sad. When questioned PW-2/victim girl allegedly informed that while she was in her uncle’s house, her cousin namely Sandeep laid hands on her and kissed her. He further threatened not to raise her voice. On the next day, the appellant Vasu, who is the cousin of the said Sandeep informed her that he likes her. The appellant tried to commit rape on her. He pressed her chest and waist and did not leave her though she resisted. However, he forcibly committed rape on her. The said incident was narrated to father/PW-1, 20 days after the incident. Police complaint was lodged.
3. On the basis of the said complaint, the victim girl was sent for medical examination. PW-8 examined the victim girl and gave final opinion that there was no medical evidence of recent sexual intercourse as there was no semen and spermatozoa.
4. Further, no blood or foreign body or hair was found. However, PW-8 opined that intercourse may have happened as the hymen was not in-tact. Ex.P7 is the FSL report and Ex.P8 is the final opinion.
5. Learned Sessions Judge, on the basis of the solitary evidence of the victim girl found that the appellant was guilty.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that the learned Sessions Judge had convicted the appellant without there being any corroborative medical evidence. Admittedly, there were no seizures and medical evidence is not supporting the prosecution case.
7. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the victim girl/PW-2 has stated that the appellant had forcibly raped her. The said statement would suffice to convict the appellant. Admittedly, the incident of rape occurred 20 days prior to lodging of complaint, as such the question of finding any semen or spermatozoon on the vaginal smears of the victim does not arise. In the said circumstances, there cannot be any other corroboration except for the testimony of the victim girl.
8. The basis on which learned Sessions Judge convicted the appellant is the evidence of PW-2. Relevant portion during chief examination of victim/PW-2 is as follows:
“On the next day afternoon hours, accused-Vasu came. He is cousin of Sandeep. He told me that he likes me. At that time my brothers were not there. The accused tried to commit rape on me. He pressed me on my chest and waist and that he did not leave me, though I resisted him. Later he forcibly committed rape on me.”
9. The girl was aged around 14 years when the incident had taken place. When there is no corroborating medical evidence or any other oral corroborative evidence, the Court has to place reliance on the testimony of the victim. If the testimony inspires confidence of the Court, the sole testimony can be made basis to convict the accused. However, in the cases where a statement is made that the accused had committed ‘rape’, the Court has to be cautious before concluding that the offence of rape has been committed.
10. The statute describes what amoun
