The Bombay High Court dismissed an appeal challenging the appellant's conviction under the POCSO Act for sexually assaulting a 14-year-old girl in 2015. In its judgment, the Court outlined the significance of the victim's testimony and the legal framework for the age determination of a victim.
Brief Facts:
An appeal was filed by the appellant, challenging his conviction under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (Hereinafter referred to as ‘POCSO Act’) and the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The victim, a 14-year-old girl, alleged that the appellant sexually assaulted her on August 24, 2015. The appellant took the girl to a field and after undressing her, had forcible sexual intercourse. When she resisted, she was assaulted by the appellant and threatened that if she disclosed the incident to anybody she would be killed, therefore, she did not disclose the incident to anybody. An FIR was promptly registered on the same day.
Contentions of the Parties:
The appellant argued that there was a significant delay in lodging the FIR and questioned the credibility of the respondent’s timeline. They highlighted that the victim's initial statement did not name the appellant but described the perpetrator as an unknown boy, casting doubts on identification. The appellant asserted that the lack of concrete evidence and inconsistencies warranted the appellant’s release, considering the duration of his sentence already served.
The respondent presented evidence to support the conviction. They established the victim's age through school records, confirming her as a minor. They argued that there was no significant delay in lodging the FIR, attributing the delay to the victim's initial hesitation to disclose the incident. Medical evidence and spot panchanama corroborated the victim's account. The respondent emphasized the reliability of the victim's testimony and her consistent identification of the appellant.
Observations of the Court:
The High Court noted that the victim's omission of certain details in her testimony was due to shame and embarrassment, which would be common for a 14-year-old girl owing to the graveness of the crime. The Court also found no undue delay in lodging the FIR, given the victim's frightened state.
The absence of enmity or motive for false implication was highlighted. The High Court emphasized that in sexual assault cases, the victim's testimony takes precedence over medical evidence.
The appellant’s statement was considered insufficient to challenge the victim's testimony and the headmaster's confirmation of the victim's age supported her status as a minor.
The High Court placed reliance on the Supreme Court’s ruling in the case of ‘P. Yuvaprakash v. State’, where it was held that when a dispute arises concerning the age of the victim under the POCSO Act, the Courts must adhere to the procedures delineated in Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice Act:
- A date of birth certificate from the school, matriculation, or equivalent certificate from the relevant examination board, if available.
- A birth certificate issued by a corporation, municipal authority, or panchayat.
- In the absence of the aforementioned documents, the age may be ascertained through an ossification test or any other contemporary medical age determination test, conducted upon the orders of the Committee or the Board.
In this case, Section 94 is of paramount importance, as it outlines the key documents for determining a person's age, even in cases involving victims. Despite the absence of a school birth certificate and the use of a school leaving certificate from a different school, the Court did not dispute that the victim qualified as a "child" under Section 2(d) of the POCSO Act. The father's testimony, containing knowledge of the daughter's birth date, played a crucial role in confirming that the victim was a child.
The Decision of the Court:
After evaluating the evidence and contentions, the High Court upheld the conviction of the appellant for aggravated penetrative sexual assault/rape. The appeal filed by the appellant was found to lack merit and was subsequently dismissed. The court affirmed the judgment of the Trial Judge, concluding that the respondent successfully established the appellant’s guilt in the case.
Case Title: Sunil vs. the State of Maharashtra
Coram: Hon’ble Justice Vibha Kankanwadi and Abhay S. Waghwase
Case No.: Criminal Appeal No.718 of 2016
Advocate for the Appellant: Pradeep K. Palve
Advocate for the Respondent: A. M. Phule
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
