Bombay High Court
Amol @ Ratnakar Baburao Prayag vs The State Of Maharashtra on 8 May, 2024
2024:BHC-AUG:9916
{1} CRI APPEAL 709 OF 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 709 OF 2022
. Amol @ Ratnakar S/o. Baburao Prayag
Age: 50 years, Occupation : Labourer,
Working in Sugare Provisions Store /
Sugare Kirana Stores,
Resident of Somwanshi Nagar,
Near Hanuman Mandir, Ambajogai Road,
Latur. Tal & Dist.Latur,
Maharashtra 431 512.
Aadhaar No.7220 1550 7868
(Presently lodged at Harsool Central Jail,
A'bad) ..Appellant
(Ori. Accused)
Versus
1) The State of Maharashtra
Through : the Police Inspector,
Investigating Officer, M.I.D.C. Police Station,
Tal. & District : Latur.
(C.R.No.33/2017, M.I.D.C. Police Station,
Dist.Latur)
2) XYZ ..Respondents
.....
Advocate for Appellant : Mr. Abhaykumar Dilip Ostwal
APP for Respondent no.1 : Mr.S.M.Ganachari
Advocate for Respondent no.2 : Mr.Vinod D. Godbharle
.....
CORAM : ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.
RESERVED ON : 30 APRIL, 2024
PRONOUNCED ON : 08 MAY, 2024
JUDGMENT :
-
1. Aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by the learned
{2} CRI APPEAL 709 OF 2022
Extra Joint District Judge and Additional Sessions Judge Latur, in
Special Case (POCSO) No.11 of 2017 dated 05-08-2022, thereby
convicting appellant herein for offence under Sections 376 (i) and (j)
of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) read with Sections 4 and 6 of the
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO Act),
original accused / convict has preferred instant appeal.
FACTS LEADING TO THE TRIAL
2. Victim, aged three and half years, went to play at her friend's
house. Accused, father of her such friend, lifted victim, took her to a
room, made her lie on the cot. He removed her clothes. Initially, he
inserted finger in her private part and then himself got undressed
and then inserted his male organ in her vagina.
Victim came home and complained informant, her mother,
regarding pain at urinal place and further informed the above act of
accused. After arrival of husband of informant late night, he was also
informed and next day mother lodged report.
Investigation of crime was entrusted to PW7 Suvarna Umap
(PSI), who after gathering evidence, chargesheeted accused for
commission of offence under Sections 376(i) and (j) of the IPC and
under Sections 4, 5(m) and 6 of the POCSO Act.
{3} CRI APPEAL 709 OF 2022
On trial, learned Extra Joint District Judge and Additional
Sessions Judge, Latur held charges proved under Section 376(i) and
(j) of the IPC read with Sections 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act and by
judgment and order dated 05-08-2022, sentenced accused to suffer
rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay fine.
Correctness, legality and maintainability of said judgment is
now questioned before this Court by filing instant appeal.
SUBMISSIONS
On behalf of appellant :
3. Pleading innocence and false implication due to previous
animosity, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that
prosecution has also miserably failed to establish charges beyond
reasonable doubt. According to him, there is no convincing or legally
acceptable evidence about very visit of victim to the house of
accused. That, similarly, there is no independent evidence
corroborating version of PW2 mother of victim, who according to
him, has allegedly received information from child. According to
him, father of victim has not been examined by prosecution. Even
neighbours of both informant as well as accused are not examined to
substantiate the charges and hence, according to him, there is no
{4} CRI APPEAL 709 OF 2022
corroboration from independent corners.
4. He forcefully submitted that version of victim in substantive
evidence does not tally with the version of informant mother. He
pointed out that child merely speaks of insertion of finger but
informant, according to him, went overboard and deposed about
penetration of male organ, which was never deposed by victim
herself. Consequently, he submits that informant has apparently
improvized her version and her testimony is therefore unsafe for
reliance. He also pointed out that evidence of informant is full of
material omissions and material contradictions.
5. He next submitted that exactly at what time incident took
place has also not proved by prosecution. He pointed out that, inspite
of informant claiming to have learnt from her daughter in the day
time itself, there is no immediate reporting or even in the night after
immediate arrival of father of victim. He submits that rather
complaint is lodged on next day and so he alleges false implication
on afterthought delayed complaint. He also pointed out that there is
no immediate medical examination.
6. According to learned Counsel for accused, in view of charges
{5} CRI APPEAL 709 OF 2022
under the POCSO Act, it was incumbent upon prosecution to first
establish age of the victim. He submitted that here neither mother
gave date of birth of victim nor there is any documentary evidence in
support of age of victim and therefore, he submits that charges under
the POCSO Act are without any foundation.
7. It is his further submission that even scene of occurrence is not
proved. He pointed out that spot panchanama is drawn at the
instance of father of victim, who himself was not in the house till
late night and had only received information from his wife informant.
Moreover, father is not made to step in the witness box and therefore,
learned Counsel doubted the very spot panchanama also. He invited
attention of the Court to testimony of PW1 Nagnath, panch witness
and would submit that house was in locked condition and if spot is
said to be shown by father of victim, according to learned Counsel,
how father had keys to open house of appellant. He also pointed out
that panch witness in cross-examination admitted to be unaware of
ownership of house and regarding not seeing documents of
ownership of the house. For all above reasons, learned Counsel
questions the credibility and veracity of the prosecution version
about occurrence taking place in the house of appellant.
{6} CRI APPEAL 709 OF 2022
8. Attacking prosecution version and findings recorded by learned
trial Court, he would submit that medical findings though are about
injuries, the age of injuries are reported to be four days old and so
according to him, the same cannot be connected with incident in
question. He pointed out that there were no fresh injuries or any
signs of bleeding or even inflammation, thereby creating doubt about
inserting finger or male organ. According to him, infact prosecution
claims that victim was examined very next day morning but medical
witness has not categorically connected findings to the occurrence of
previous day. He would strenuously submit that immediately after
examination, opinion was reserved and opinion is issued after several
months by the medical expert and is apparently brought at the time
of deposition.
Therefore, according to him, creation of medical papers to suit
the prosecution cannot also be ruled out. He also emphasized that
medical opinion, not being concrete about rape, benefit has to be
given to the accused, as according to him, medical evidence, which is
crucial in cases of such nature, is itself not fully supporting
prosecution version.
{7} CRI APPEAL 709 OF 2022
9. He also invited attention of the Court to the forensic evidence
and submitted that the same is negative. That even Medical Expert
categorically admitted in cross-examination about CA report to be not
supporting and for all above reasons, he submits that even scientific
evidence belies the prosecution story.
10. Lastly, he submitted that material witnesses are not examined
by prosecution like lady to whose house informant went that day,
Ghorpade, another lady, whom informant claim to have met
immediately, very Doctor, who actually examined victim, neighbours
and other siblings of the victim. On the contrary, he pointed out that
accused had put up a plea of alibi and same is substantiated and
proved by adducing four defence witnesses including very daughter
of appellant.
For all above reasons, he prays to allow the appeal by setting
aside the impugned judgment.
On behalf of State and Informant :
11. In answer to above and staunchly opposing the appeal, learned
APP as well as learned Counsel for informant submitted that
prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and that
too by adducing overwhelming and quality evidence. It is pointed
{8} CRI APPEAL 709 OF 2022
out that victim, a three and half years old girl, herself stepped in the
witness box and narrated the deeds of appellant, who is father of her
friend, to whose house child went to play. It is pointed out that
victim returned home and made complaint to informant mother.
That her maternal aunt was also available there. That they both had
heard complaint made by the child. It is pointed out that father of
victim was not in the house and informant was waiting for his arrival.
That he reached late night and was duly informed. It being night
time, they did not approach Police immediately. Learned APP
submitted that in cases of such nature, parents hesitate to report
immediately. But according to him, very next day morning, they had
approached Police and reported the occurrence. That mother of the
victim has lodged report. She has deposed what was informed by her
daughter and her evidence has remained unshaken on crucial
aspects. That victim was referred for medical examination. Learned
APP submitted that in trial Court, there was no dispute raised
regarding age of victim. He pointed out that, when medical evidence
suggested sexual assault, considering the age of the victim, provisions
of the POCSO Act were automatically attracted and accused was
accordingly indicted for said provisions also.
{9} CRI APPEAL 709 OF 2022
12. Learned APP as well as learned Counsel for victim took this
Court through the testimonies of victim and her mother i.e.
informant and they would point out that act of accused has been
consistently stated by both of them. It is further pointed out that
maternal aunt, who was present, has also deposed in witness box.
That medical expert, who examined victim, has issued clear opinion.
That medical expert noticed injuries and the same are recorded and
noted along with history. Therefore, according to them, there is
sufficient corroboration from medical evidence. Consequently,
charges are cogently and firmly proved. According to them, learned
trial Court correctly appreciated the evidence. Both learned APP as
well as learned Counsel representing victim supported the findings
and conclusion of the trial Court. It is submitted that there is no
illegality or perversity in the impugned Judgment and order and so it
is prayed that there being no merit in the appeal, same deserves to be
dismissed.
EVIDENCE ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION IN TRIAL COURT
13. In support of its case, prosecution has adduced evidence of in
all seven witnesses and sum and substance of their evidence is as
under :
{10} CRI APPEAL 709 OF 2022
PW1 Nagnath Janardhan Panchal, Pancha to spot panchanama
narrated about accompanying MIDC Police to the house of appellant.
He gave description of the room and stated about seizure of bed
sheet. He identified panchanama exh.38.
PW2 is the mother of victim and informant. Sum and
substance of her evidence is that when she returned after attending
social function, victim, her daughter told that she is unable to pass
urine. She examined her private part and noticed swelling as well as
white discharge. Her daughter told that she went to the house of
accused to play with girls. Her victim daughter told that accused
lifted her, took her into the house, made her lie on the cot, removed
her pant, inserted finger in private part, then removed his pant,
pressed her mouth and inserted his penis in the vagina of victim. Her
husband returned around at around 10:30 p.m. to 11:00 p.m. and in
the morning of next day, they approached Police.
PW3 Maternal aunt of victim stated that she knew accused.
That day at 05:00 p.m., victim came to the house and complained
about pain in stomach and in private part. Mother of victim had
been to attend function. After arrival of mother, victim told that
accused removed her knicker, inserted finger in vagina, made victim
{11} CRI APPEAL 709 OF 2022
lie on the cot, removed his clothes, pressed her mouth and inserted
his private part in her private part.
PW4 Gangasagar Ramkisan Bandre is LPC, who took victim for
medical examination.
PW5 Dr.Rahul Bhagwan Umbare is Medical Officer, who in the
company of two other Doctors, examined victim, noted findings of
injuries, collected samples and issued opinion exh.62.
PW6 is Victim, who deposed at exh.65 that she was eating
coconut dry fruits on steps infront of house of father of her friend.
Her friend's father lifted and took her in the house, asked her to
remove pant. When she shouted, he shut her mouth, inserted his
finger. Trial Court noted "she has shown place where he inserted his
finger". She further deposed that he inserted his finger in the place
of passing urine. She came home, asked her mother to see her private
part. Mother saw it. Her maternal aunt came. She told same facts
to her.
PW7 Suvarna Shrawan Umap (PSI) is the Investigating Officer.
{12} CRI APPEAL 709 OF 2022
14. Accused has also adduced evidence of four witnesses in
support of his defence.
DW1 Rajesh Maheshwar Sugare is Kirana shop owner where
accused was working.
DW2 Avantika Ratnakar Prayag is daughter of accused.
DW3 Ashwini Amol Prayag is wife of accused.
DW4 Narsing Adinath Kasale is Supervisor of Matoshri
Vradhashram where DW3 wife of accused is working.
ANALYSIS
Question 1 : Whether prosecution established victim to be a 'minor' ?
15. Though learned Counsel for the appellant tried to question
prosecution evidence on age of victim, apparently and evidently PW2
mother of victim / informant deposed that victim daughter was born
in 2013, but she is unable to give exact date of birth. In cross-
examination, she answered that other daughters, whose names are
given in paragraph 14 were of 8 and 7 years respectively. There is no
suggestion to informant mother in cross-examination, for namesake,
that victim is not three and half years of age. Resultantly, there is no
serious cross-examination of prosecution witnesses like PW2 mother
of victim on the point of age. PW5 Dr.Umbare, who is examined at
{13} CRI APPEAL 709 OF 2022
exh.55 and is an independent witness, deposed that he examined
victim, who is three and half years old. On meticulous analysis of
medical expert's cross-examination, it appears that there is no
suggestion that the age given in examination-in-chief is false. Entire
cross-examination of medical expert is on medical findings on
examination and resultantly, there is no effective cross-examination
even of medical expert on the point of age of victim. Taking above
material into consideration, there is no force in the argument
advanced before this Court that prosecution is unsuccessful in
establishing that victim was a 'minor'.
Trial Court, which recorded evidence, has categorically put up
preliminary questions to the victim to ascertain her competence to
understand questions and give answers. On the strength of such
material, there is no hesitation to hold that victim is definitely shown
to be 'minor'.
Question 2 : Whether prosecution has proved the charges beyond
reasonable doubt ?
16. Charge at exh.9 is for commission of offence under Sections
376(i) and (j) of the IPC and under Section 4, 5(m) and 6 of the
POCSO Act.
{14} CRI APPEAL 709 OF 2022
Therefore, in the light of above charge, admittedly, crucial
evidence is that of PW6 victim, PW2 mother of victim / informant
and PW5 Dr.Umbare, Medical Expert. Fate of the prosecution story
entirely rests on above witnesses and their testimonies.
PW2 Mother of victim / informant's testimony :
17. PW2 mother of victim / informant, in her evidence at exh.42
deposed that accused is their neighbour. Incident took place on
29-01-2017. She gave name of daughter of accused and stated that
her daughters went to the house of accused to play with his daughter
and they were playing outside the house near the stairs. Her
daughter told her that accused lifted victim, took in the house, made
her lie on the cot, removed her garments and inserted finger into her
private part. Then he removed his pant and pressed mouth of child.
Then accused entered his penis into vagina of victim.
In paragraph 4, she further stated that she had been to attend
the function to the house of Tandale. When she returned home,
victim told incident to her and complained that she is unable to pass
urine. That time victim informed about above incident happened
with her. Then, when husband of this witness reached home at 10:30
p.m., she informed him and on the next day, they approached Police.
{15} CRI APPEAL 709 OF 2022
Informant is subjected to extensive cross-examination wherein
she has admitted that she is illiterate. There are questions about
geographical directions and surroundings of the house. She has
given names of friends of her daughter. In paragraph 15, she
answered that daughters of accused did not visit their house but she
denied that there was any quarrel between herself and mother of
friend of her daughter. In further cross-examination, she gave name
of elder daughter of accused and stated that she used to talk with
her. She denied that a boy namely Pappu used to come to her house
and elder daughter of accused was married to said boy. Rest is all
denial.
PW6 Victim's testimony :
18. She is examined at exh.65. Substantive evidence of the victim
in the trial Court is as under :
"On the day of incident, I was eating coconut dry fruits
on steps infront of house of father of Radhika. Father of
Radhika lifted and took me in house. He said me to remove my
pant. I shouted as "Mummi-Mummi". At that time, he shut my
mouth. He has inserted his finger. She has shown place where
he inserted his finger."
Her evidence recorded at exh.65 shows that learned trial Court
has noted that the victim was pointing her finger to the private part
{16} CRI APPEAL 709 OF 2022
and stating that accused inserted his finger. She further deposed
that he inserted his finger in the place of passing urine. She came
home and asked her mother to see her private part. Mother saw it.
Her maternal aunt also came. Fact was also told to her.
Child is also subjected to extensive cross-examination.
Relevant cross-examination is in paragraph 4, because in paragraph 3
she is questioned about school, its timing, friends, games loved and
played by her, by what name she was addressed by her mother. In
paragraph 4, the child flatly denied that she is deposing as her
mother told her to give evidence. She specifically answered that on
that day there was "Haldi-Kunku". She answered that when she went
to her home, at that time, her mother was present for some time.
She answered that aunt was also residing there. She has denied that
she suffered injuries to leg and hand while playing. That there was
no scolding to her or other friend. She flatly denied that she did not
go to the house of her friend. She has specifically stated that there
are two rooms in the house of her friend and house of accused is
facing towards the road whereas bed room and kitchen are in the
backside. In paragraph 6, there is denial. In paragraph 7, she
admitted that six months prior to the incident, her mother and
mother of her friend stopped visiting and talking with each other.
{17} CRI APPEAL 709 OF 2022
Rest is all denial.
Medical Expert's evidence :
19. If we visit evidence of PW5 Dr.Umbare, who had occasion to
physically examine victim, he is found to be deposing that on that
day victim was referred for examination. He and two other Doctors
conducted examination. He stated that victim was unable to state
history and therefore, history was narrated by her parents. They told
that on 29-01-2017 victim was playing in the house of accused with
her sisters and other friends and accused took victim forcefully to
another room, when victim started crying, he forcefully closed her
mouth and removed victim's clothes, he started kissing over her face
and chest and started fingering and fondling over face, chest and
genital region, he then inserted his fingers into genitals of the victim,
then he removed his clothes and tried inserting his male genital
organ into victims genital region, then victim started urging him that
she is getting pain in the genital region then accused left her, victim
came to her house and she narrated the incident to her mother.
In paragraph 2, PW5 Dr.Umbare, deposed that significant
observation was that accused had forcibly shut her mouth and
inserted his penis and fingers into genital region of victim.
In paragraph 3, PW5 Dr.Umbare reproduced the findings and
{18} CRI APPEAL 709 OF 2022
gave age of injuries to be within four days. Final opinion is at exh.60
that "Considering the age of victim, physical and genital findings and
laboratory reports, it is very less likely that her hymen is torn by any
other means than sexual intercourse, concluding more possibility of
sexual assault in this instant case."
While in cross-examination, PW5 Dr.Umbare has admitted that
injury, which is caused within 12 hours is called as fresh injury. He
admitted that he did not find any fresh injury to hymen perineum.
Questions are posed to him on medical jurisprudence i.e. Modi's
Jurisprudence in paragraph 8. Again in cross-examination in
paragraph 12, Dr.Umbare has admitted that there is possibility of
sexual assault. Further cross-examination is by posing question
which is as under :
"Q. : In final opinion there mention as the more
possibility of sexual assault and it is not concluded as due
to sexual assault.
Ans. : We have concluding more possibility of sexual
assault. As per the medical science we only mention
possibility of sexual assault."
SUMMATION ON ABOVE EVIDENCE
20. On comparative study of evidence of informant and victim, it
can safely be held that victim had been to the house of accused on
{19} CRI APPEAL 709 OF 2022
the day of incident. The very manner of cross-examination of victim,
more particularly, paragraph 4 confirms that victim went to the house
of accused. Victim has narrated act of accused in her substantive
evidence. She has reported her mother same evening and made
complaint of pain at her private parts. She speaks repeatedly about
insertion of finger in private part.
As pointed out, child's evidence is silent about penetration of
male organ as is testified by informant mother as well as medical
expert. However, it is to be borne in mind that victim is a child of
barely three and half years of age. She is made to depose in the
witness box. A child of tender age may not have narrated what she
informed her mother about penetration of male organ. It is not
expected of victim of such tender age to reiterate the incident in
verbatim repeatedly in the same manner. Therefore, mere failure of
child to depose about penetration of penis, itself would not be
sufficient to doubt informant mother's testimony and immediately
branding it to be improvized version. Child has reported mother on
her arrival after attending social function. Her maternal aunt, who
was there, also informed and has deposed by stepping in the witness
box. Therefore, there is credible account of victim as well as mother.
There is no reason for false implication on account of no talks
{20} CRI APPEAL 709 OF 2022
between informant and wife of accused that too about six months
back. No mother would at the cost of dignity of her own child, levels
false allegation. There is no reason here to disbelieve child's
testimony, which is crucial and had remained intact about act of
accused.
21. PW5 Dr.Umbare, Medical expert, who is also an independent
witness, has testified about noting the history and on examination,
issuing finding about possibility of sexual assault. Even when
examined by way of putting questions, medical expert has reiterated
that there is more possibility of sexual assault and medical experts
usually issue opinion in such manner. Resultantly, victim's account,
informant mother's account is finding support even from medical
account.
GROUNDS IN APPEAL
22. Now let us distinctly deal with the grounds pressed into
service.
The fundamental ground and objection regarding failure of
prosecution to establish age is already dealt and discussed in
aforesaid paragraph.
It is reiterated that taking into account, testimony of informant
{21} CRI APPEAL 709 OF 2022
mother, birth of victim is of 2013. She is a illiterate lady. She is
merely unable to give exact date. Occurrence is of 2017. Therefore,
there is evidence about victim to be below twelve years of age.
23. Second ground is that medical expert has merely expressed
possibility of sexual assault and there is no concrete finding and
hence, accused to be entitled for benefit of doubt.
In the considered view of this court, Medical Expert's evidence
are always opinion evidence. Here on examination at the hands' of
three medical experts, opinion has been issued confirming sexual
assault. It is practice of Doctors to use the word "possibility" and PW5
Dr.Umbare has elaborated and clarified to that extent. Hence, above
challenge has no force.
24. In above ground, it is also tried to be submitted that final
opinion was not issued immediately, rather it is at a belated stage.
Merely Medical Expert carrying final opinion at the time of
deposition would not be sufficient to cast doubt on the findings
recorded upon examination of victim at the hands of not one but
three Doctors. Therefore, failure to issue final opinion at the end of
medical examination itself, is no good ground to discard entire
expert's evidence.
{22} CRI APPEAL 709 OF 2022
25. Third ground of challenge is that there is no distinct evidence
regarding visit of victim to the house of accused.
Such objection needs to be discarded outrightly for the simple
reason that, while cross-examining victim, in paragraph 4, visit of the
victim is got confirmed by defence itself. She is asked questions
about number of rooms, geographical location of house, location of
distinct rooms and child has categorically answered that there are
two rooms, house to be facing towards road and kitchen and bed
room to be at the rear side. What more is required to confirm visit of
victim to the house of accused. Above all, very defence witness i.e.
DW2 elder daughter of accused herself has also confirmed visit of
victim at their house while she was studying. With such material on
record, it is surprising to find objection of above nature to be raised.
Defence itself has confirmed visit of victim to the house of accused.
Very recently, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Balu
Sudam Khalde and Another v. The State of Maharashtra, 2023
LiveLaw (SC) 279 has observed in paragraph 38 that " if the
suggestion is made by defence counsel to a witness in cross-
examination, if found to be incriminating in nature in any manner,
would definitely bind the accused and he cannot get away on the
{23} CRI APPEAL 709 OF 2022
plea that his counsel had no authority to make suggestions in the
nature of admissions against his client ". Further in paragraph 42, it
is observed that "Suggestions made to the witness by the defence
counsel and the reply to such suggestions would definitely form part
of the evidence and can be relied upon by the Court along with other
evidence on record to determine guilt of the accused".
Here applying above law, the manner and nature of defence
raised in the trial Court itself confirms the visit and occurrence.
26. Fourth ground of challenge is on account of implication due to
previous animosity.
PW2 Informant / mother of victim, while under cross-
examination, has flatly denied any quarrel with wife of accused.
Victim has in cross-examination admitted that her mother and
mother of her friend were not on talking terms. Even taking such
material into account, there is no animosity with accused father to
falsely implicate him. Merely two ladies to be not in talking terms, is
no reason to imply enmity to such extent so as to implicate accused
on grave and serious accusations. Said defence cannot be digested
and further cannot be taken recourse too for holding false
implication.
{24} CRI APPEAL 709 OF 2022
Forensic Evidence :
27. Fifth ground of challenge is that forensic evidence does not
support prosecution.
It is true that scientific evidence is not positive, but exh.3 bed
sheet seized from the house of accused, carries blood stains. On
analysis, blood group is shown to be "O". Appellant's blood group is
also "O". Therefore, it cannot be said that scientific evidence is
entirely negative.
28. It is also tried to be submitted that prosecution has not proved
the spot panchanama.
On visiting evidence of PW1 Nagnath, it is clear that
panchanama exh.38 is cogently proved. It is the house of accused.
Pancha is an independent witness and therefore, there is no
substance in above ground.
29. Last ground about non-examination of neighbour or the lady to
whose house informant had been for social function, is also of not
much significance, more particularly, when crucial evidence like that
of victim and that of medical expert is worthy of credence. Here both
are lending support to each other. Therefore, above ground also has
{25} CRI APPEAL 709 OF 2022
no merit.
30. No doubt attempt has been made by accused to adduce
evidence of four witness in support of plea of alibi. But there is no
trustworthy and convincing evidence. Defence to that extent has not
been probabilized. Having taken plea of alibi, burden was on accused
to prove it, but he failed to do so.
SUMMATION
31. To sum up here, victim has categorically stated about act of
accused. Though in substantive evidence, she failed to mention
insertion of male organ and is categorical and specific only as regards
to insertion of finger in private part, offence under Section 375(b) of
the IPC also gets gravitated. Equally, insertion of finger in private
part of a minor attracts Section 3(b) of the POCSO Act further
gravitating penal action under Section 4 of the POCSO Act. Child is
shown to be below twelve years of age, therefore, Section 5(m) of
the POCSO also gets invoked. Hence, charges are squarely brought
home.
32. Studied the judgment under challenge. In the opinion of this
Court, there is correct appreciation of both evidence as well as law.
{26} CRI APPEAL 709 OF 2022
No illegality or perversity is brought to the notice of this Court so as
to interfere.
33. Learned Counsel for appellant made a faint and feeble attempt
to seek leniency and reduce the sentence on the ground that accused
has daughter of marriageable age and other daughters.
Taking into consideration the nature of act of accused to be
proved beyond reasonable doubt and having victimized a child, who
was friend and of almost similar age of his own daughter, no
sympathy or leniency can be extended. There being no merits in the
appeal, the same deserves to be dismissed. Accordingly, I proceed to
pass following order :
ORDER
Criminal Appeal No.709 of 2022 is dismissed.
( ABHAY S. WAGHWASE )
JUDGE
SPT
