The Bombay High Court dismissed an appeal challenging the Judgment and order dated 14.10.2015 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, thereby convicting the appellant-accused for offences punishable under various provisions of the IPC and under Sections 6 and 4 of the POCSO Act to suffer R.I. for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs.20,000/- i/d R.I. for one year.
The Court observed that the sole testimony of the victim is sufficient to hold the accused guilty.
Brief Facts:
The victim was a student in 7th standard at Zilla Parishad School. According to her father, the daughter went missing on 01.06.2014. Father claims that he received a phone call from accused, who was the teacher of his daughter in the school, informing him that he had travelled long distance along with informant’s daughter and that they would return to the village after three to four days. Therefore, the father approached the police station and lodged a report.
The victim girl and the accused were searched and traced at Trimbakeshwar, Nasik. Medical examination revealed that the victim had been sexually assaulted. Learned Special Judge, Bhoom conducted the trial and after appreciating oral and documentary evidence adduced by both parties, reached the conclusion that the accused had committed the offences for which he was charged.
Contentions of the Appellant:
The Learned Counsel for the Appellant argued that there was a quarrel between parents and the girl, who was his student; she had disclosed to accused that she did not want to stay in the house and rather intended to commit suicide; the accused gave her solace and took her with him as he had already planned to go out. Thus, there was no kidnapping as alleged and rather the girl had come on her own; there was no force exercised on her by the accused in any manner.
Further, the Counsel contended that the medical evidence does not suggest any forcible sexual intercourse. The prosecution evidence was without essential ingredients for bringing home the charge. There are several major infirmities in the findings and reasons and hence he prays to allow the appeal by setting aside the impugned judgment and order.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The learned Counsels for the Respondent argued that the accused had taken advantage of his position and had induced the victim to leave the company of her parents. The accused had taken her to various places by forcibly making her wear mangalsutra just to foist that she was his wife. After taking her to lodge, he had forcible sexual intercourse with her. The girl has named the lodge where she was taken and has testified to that extent. Her testimony is corroborated by medical evidence.
Further, the Counsel contended that the learned trial Judge ought to have awarded imprisonment for life. He, thereby, prayed to enhance the said sentence.
Observations of the Court
The Court observed that the accused seems to have victimized his student, who, in our opinion, was her guardian while she was taking education in the school. The evidence of the victim clearly shows that he lured her from the guardianship and lawful custody of her parents and took her to various places with the evil intention of ravishing her.
Further, the Court took note of the fact that the accused made the victim wear a mangal sutra to show that she was married to him. The girl stated that the said sexual relations were against her wish. With such a version coming from the minor, there is no further requirement of other evidence to hold that there was forcible sexual intercourse. Her sole testimony is sufficient to hold the accused guilty. Therefore, the only inference that can be drawn is that the accused had raped and forced himself upon the minor girl.
The decision of the Court:
The Bombay High Court, dismissing the appeal, held that there is no hesitation to hold that the accused is the culprit and he has committed all the offences for which he has been charged. Therefore, there is no merit in the appeal and the same deserves to be dismissed. Further, the Court held that the quantum of sentence awarded by the learned trial Judge would subserve the purpose of justice.
Case Title: Arvind v The State of Maharashtra
Coram: Hon’ble Justice Vibha Kankanwadi Hon’ble Justice Abhay S. Waghwase
Case no.: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 852 OF 2015
Advocate for the Appellant: Mr. V. R. Dhorde
Advocate for the Respondent: Mr. A. M. Phule
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com:
Picture Source :