The Bombay High Court noted the scientific and technological advancements and observed that DNA testing can exonerate the wrongly convicted and identify the guilty ones. It was pointed out that DNA testing has the potential to provide guidance in the investigation and improve both the criminal justice system and police investigation practices. The Court further remarked that there was nothing on record to show that the accused was falsely implicated. The entire case of the prosecution rested on medical evidence which was enough to prove that the victim was subjected to penetrative sexual assault.
Brief Facts:
The case of the prosecution is that the father of the victim is not alive, and the mother is the informant who had performed the second marriage. The informant worked as a domestic help in the house of the accused. The victim stayed with the family of the accused comprising a son and daughter of the accused.
Thereafter, the victim approached the informant and complained about abdominal pain. The accused and informant took the victim to the hospital, and it was revealed that the victim was 7 months pregnant. On being questioned by the informant, it was disclosed by the victim that when the victim was in 9th grade, the accused forcibly committed sexual intercourse with her. The victim got pregnant and conceived a child which was given to a Child Welfare Committee. Later, FIR was lodged by the informant and an offence was registered against the accused.
The Trial Court found the accused guilty and convicted the accused. It is against the said conviction that the present appeal is filed.
Contentions of the Appellant:
It was contended by the Appellant that the victim’s age has not been proven. Further, the victim was involved in a love relationship and therefore, pregnancy could be a result of the said relationship. It was alleged that solely based on DNA, the accused cannot be held guilty.
Contentions of the Respondent:
It was argued that the evidence of the victim was sufficiently corroborated by the DNA report and medical evidence. Therefore, the guilt of the accused is proved beyond any reasonable doubt.
Observations of the Court:
The Court noted that for determining the age of both, a child in conflict and a child who is a victim of crime, Rule 12 of the Juvenile Justice Rules 2007 applies. As per the rule, priority must be given to the matriculation certificate for determining age. If such a certificate is available as evidence, then no other option can be relied upon. It is only in the absence of the certificate, that the date of birth entered the school first attended by the child can be considered. If such entry is not available, then reliance can be placed on the birth certificate issued by Corporation, Municipal Authority, or Panchayat. If this is also not available, then medical opinion is the last option to ascertain the age.
After appreciating the evidence on record, the High Court observed that there was nothing on record to show that the Accused was falsely implicated. The entire case of the Prosecution rested on medical evidence which was enough to prove that the victim was subjected to penetrative sexual assault.
It was remarked by the Court that sexual activities with young girls leave a traumatic impression on their minds for a long time and often destruct their personalities. It was observed that the evidence of the victim of the lust of another person ranks higher than that of an injured witness.
Noting the scientific and technological advancements, the High Court observed that DNA testing can exonerate the wrongly convicted and identify the guilty ones. DNA testing has the potential to provide guidance in the investigation and improve both the criminal justice system and police investigation practices.
The decision of the Court:
The Bombay High Court noted that the accused was in a position of trust and dominance and took undue advantage of the victim. Therefore, based on the reasons, the Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the order passed by the Trial Court.
Case Title: Harishchandra Sitaram Khanorkar v. State of Maharashtra
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rohit B. Deo, Hon’ble Ms. Justice Urmila Joshi Phalke
Case No.: Criminal Appeal No. 470 of 2019
Advocates for Appellant: Advs. Shri A.S. Dhore, Shri Sheikh Sohailuddin, Shri Yash Bangale
Advocates for Respondent: Shri M.J. Khan (PP)
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
