Victim's Testimony and Birth Certificate Sufficient for POCSO Conviction: Bombay High Court Upholds 20-Year Sentence - 2025-04-10

Bombay High Court Upholds 20-Year Sentence in POCSO Case, Emphasizing Victim Testimony and Age Proof Validity

Nagpur, Maharashtra – The Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court has affirmed a lower court's judgment, upholding the 20-year rigorous imprisonment sentence for Imtiyaj s/o Kayyum Ansari in a case registered under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012, and various sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Justice UrmilaJoshi-Phalke presided over the appeal, dismissing the appellant's challenge to the trial court's order dated August 24, 2023.

Case Background and Trial Court Verdict

The case originated from an incident in 2017, where a 16-year-old girl was reported missing from Nagpur. The prosecution's case detailed how the victim was allegedly lured away from her lawful guardianship, taken to Ajmer, and subsequently subjected to repeated sexual assault by the appellant, Imtiyaj Ansari . The trial court, in Special (POCSO) Case No.94/2017, found Ansari guilty under Sections 6 (read with 5(1)) of the POCSO Act, and Sections 366 (kidnapping, abducting or inducing woman to compel her marriage, etc.), 363 (kidnapping), 344 (wrongful confinement), and 506(2) (criminal intimidation) of the IPC. Besides the 20-year sentence under the POCSO Act, the trial court also imposed sentences ranging from 1 to 7 years for the IPC offences, along with fines.

Appellant's Arguments

Represented by Shri Amit Choube, the appellant argued for the dismissal of the conviction based on several grounds. Key arguments included:

Lack of Independent Corroboration: The defense contended that the victim's testimony lacked independent corroboration and was not trustworthy enough to sustain a conviction.

Consensual Act: It was suggested that the relationship was consensual, fueled by a "love affair," and that the victim, being close to the age of majority, willingly accompanied the accused.

Age of Victim Disputed (Indirectly): While the birth date wasn't directly challenged, the appellant emphasized the victim being "on the verge of attaining the age of majority" to undermine the gravity of the charges, particularly kidnapping.

State's Counter-Arguments and Evidence

Representing the State, Additional Public Prosecutor Shri V.A. Thakare strongly opposed the appeal, highlighting:

Victim 's Credible Testimony: The prosecution asserted the victim's testimony was consistent and credible, inspiring confidence despite being a sole witness.

Forceful Abduction and Assault: Evidence indicated the victim was not known to the accused prior to being taken by co-accused and was forcefully taken to Ajmer against her will, culminating in sexual assault.

DNA Evidence: Crucially, DNA reports corroborated the sexual assault allegations, linking the accused to the crime.

Age Proof: The prosecution presented substantial evidence, including the victim's father's testimony, the victim's statement, and a birth certificate, to establish her minority at the time of the incident.

High Court's Reasoning and Decision

Justice Joshi-Phalke meticulously examined the evidence and arguments. Key aspects of the High Court's reasoning include:

Age Determination: The court placed strong reliance on the birth certificate (Exh.59) and the testimony of PW12, Dr. Ratifur Pathan , a medical officer from Nagpur Municipal Corporation, who produced and validated the birth records. The court extensively cited the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969, and the Indian Evidence Act, emphasizing the admissibility and evidentiary value of birth certificates issued by public officers. The judgment stated, "The birth certificate as such is issued by the public officer and it is a document forming record of the acts of the public officer and, therefore, the same is a public document within the meaning of Section 74 of the Indian Evidence Acts and the same is admissible in evidence in view of Section 77 of the Indian Evidence Act ."

Victim 's Testimony on Kidnapping: The court analyzed the victim's account of being taken from her lawful guardianship, referring to the Supreme Court's judgment in S.Varadarajan vs. State of Madras . While acknowledging the distinction between "taking" and "allowing to accompany," the High Court concluded that the evidence demonstrated the victim was "taken by enticing her" despite her initial resistance and attempts to return home.

Reliability of Victim 's Testimony on Sexual Assault and Corroboration: Addressing the lack of independent witness to the sexual assault, the court underscored that in sexual assault cases, the victim's testimony holds significant weight, akin to an injured witness. Furthermore, the court noted that the victim's testimony was corroborated by medical evidence (PW6 Dr.Swati Dodke) and, critically, by the DNA report (PW9 Sharvari Kulkarni). The court highlighted the reliability of DNA evidence, citing Mukesh Singh vs. The State (NCT of Delhi) (Nirbhaya case), noting, "DNA testing has an unparalleled ability both to exonerate the wrongly convicted and to identify the guilty... there is 100 % accuracy regarding DNA results." The court found no evidence of tampering with samples, further strengthening the DNA evidence's credibility.

Rejection of "Consensual Act" Argument: The court found no merit in the defense's claim of a consensual relationship. The evidence pointed towards forceful abduction, confinement, and assault, negating any suggestion of consent.

Final Verdict

Ultimately, the Bombay High Court found no infirmity in the trial court's judgment. Justice Joshi-Phalke concluded, "After re-appreciating the entire evidence, it reveals that the victim was not only “kidnapped” but also subjected for sexual assault by the accused. Learned Judge of the trial court appreciated the evidence by considering all these aspects and rightly convicted the accused." The appeal was dismissed, thus upholding the 20-year rigorous imprisonment and associated penalties for Imtiyaj s/o Kayyum Ansari .

This judgment reinforces the evidentiary value of victim testimony and birth certificates in POCSO cases and emphasizes the critical role of forensic evidence like DNA analysis in securing convictions for child sexual abuse offences. It serves as a significant affirmation of the judiciary's commitment to protecting children and ensuring stringent punishment for perpetrators of such heinous crimes.