A Mumbai Court recently held that friendship cannot be misconstrued for love or having a friend of the opposite sex does not mean that he/she will be available for satisfying one’s sexual needs. The observation was made while confirming the conviction of an 18-year old boy for raping a 13- year old girl.
Factual Background
A day prior to the rape, the victim was told by the accused that he loved her. The victim informed the same to her mother. The very next day, the accused entered her house when she was alone and raped her. The accused even threatened the victim to kill, in case she discloses the incident to someone.
Case of the Victim
The victim’s mother filed the First Information Report as soon as she came to know about the offence. He was charged for the offences under Section 376 and 534D of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 4, 8 and 12 of the POCSO Act.
Case of the Accused
During the trial, the accused denied the alleged offences and stated that he and the victim were in a love affair. It was further submitted that the mother of the victim was informed of the same. The defence submitted that the victim sent him messages and they had photographs together. Photographs of the parties were submitted to the Court from the festival of Holi, where the accused is without a shirt and the victim is standing beside him.
The accused also emphasized the judgment of the Supreme Court in Radhu v. State of Madhya Pradesh, wherein it was observed that courts should bear in mind that false charges of rape are not uncommon. It was also contended that there have been rare instances where a parent has persuaded a gullible or obedient daughter to make a false charge of rape either to take revenge or extort money or to get rid of financial liability.
Observation of Court
However, the Court was unconvinced with the position of the accused. The judgment of the Supreme Court in Radhu v. State of Madhya Pradesh was discussed in which it was held that in the victim of rape states on oath that she was forcibly subjected to sexual intercourse, her statement will normally be accepted, even if it is non-supportive.
“The victim girl was not the consenting party is clear. It is not necessary that the protest has to be shown by marks of a struggle," the judgment said.
In fact, the judge was of the view that in an offence of sexual assault the victim is not an accomplice. Her testimony alone is sufficient and is quite supportive by evidence of other witnesses and medical reports. Therefore, it was stated that the evidence of the victim inspired the Court’s confidence specifically since the cross-examination could not weaken her credence and she was resistant in her stand that it was forcible sexual intercourse.
“As per the settled position of law if the victim of rape states on oath that she was forcibly subjected to sexual intercourse, her statement will normally be accepted, even if it is uncorroborated”, the Court said.
While responding to the contention of the accused that there existed a relationship between the accused and the victim, the Court stated that friendliness was common but the accused exceeded his limit by forcing himself sexually on the victim.
“The accused has, as a right in the guise of being fired, forced himself because of his one-sided love and committed this grievous offence. The victim girl’s life is devastated by the act of the accused also has caused a dent to his life at the very early phase of youth”, the Court held.
The Court noted that there was some discrepancy with respect to the victim being 13 years old; it said that she was definitely below 18 years. Moreover, in the present case testimony of the prosecutrix do not show any consent irrespective of whether she is minor or major, the Court added. Hence, it convicted the accused for the offence of rape under IPC and for sexual harassment, sexual assault and penetrative sexual assault under POCSO.
With respect to sentencing, the Court stated that a sentence must be commensurate with the gravity of the offence; however, the object of the criminal justice system is to rehabilitate the transgressor and the criminals. Therefore, the accused was sentenced to 8 years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs 20,000 for the offence of rape under IPC and penetrative sexual assault under POCSO.
Separate sentences were handed down for sexual assault and sexual harassment under POCSO. All the sentences would run concurrently, the Court clarified. The victim was also awarded compensation by the District Legal Services Authority, Mumbai under the various compensation schemes.
Case Details
Before: POCSO Court
Case Title: State of Maharashtra v. Satish Jalinder Shinde
Coram: Hon’ble Justice Priti Kumar
Read Order@LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :