December 23,2018:
On Saturday, Bombay High Court convicted a man after on Rape Charges of which he was he was acquitted 21 years ago.
The Nashik resident had charges of raping an 11-year-old girl.
Division Bench of HC comprising of Justice Indrajit Mahanty and Justice Vishwas Jadhav overturned a 1997 Trial Court order acquitting Macchindra Sonawane (who was 19 at time of the incident and is now 41), and held him guilty of rape and sentenced him to seven years imprisonment.
HC Bench refused a plea to show the accused leniency over two-decade delay and directed Sonawane to pay Rs 1 lakh as compensation to survivor. Sonawane has been given a month to surrender.
High Court Bench stated that Sessions Court had erred and acted in a “casual or cavalier manner”.
"It had freed the accused relying on an X-ray ossification test of the survivor that estimated her age as 14. Taking into consideration the two- to three-year margin of error, it determined that the survivor’s age was 16, which was the age of consent at that time" Bench added.
Bench had asked Legal Services Authority to trace the survivor and help her get compensation under the Maharashtra government scheme for rape survivors.
Bombay HC Bench state that“Even though the incident took place in 1996, we remain with the fervent hope and confidence that protecting the confidence of the common man in the institution entrusted with the administration of justice is reaffirmed".
On December 1, 1996, the Survivor, who was alone at her home in Nashik, visited Accused’s shop for medicine for her headache. Sonawane forcibly dragged her to his room, raped her and threw her out of his house.
Suvivor’s family found her outside the house in blood-stained clothes and took her to a hospital where it was confirmed that she suffered forcible sexual intercourse.
Police arrested accused for rape. In 1997, Sessions Court acquitted him.
Trial Court relied on an x-ray ossification test of survivor that estimated her age as 14.
Sessions Court took into consideration the two- to three-year margin of error, and concluded in favour of the accused, after determining that the survivor’s age was 16. Prior to 2013, 16 was the age of sexual consent in India; now it is 18.
The trial court also concluded that the incident was consensual saying there was no injuries to show that the survivor had put up a resistance and her story that she had gone to get medicines was not believable.
Bench stated that,“The absence of any injury on her body cannot lead to a conclusion that she had given her consent and all that it indicates is that she did not put up resistance. Lack of any resistance or absence of injury on the body of the victim are of no consequence vis a vis the issue of consent”.
High Court further pointed out that the survivor had categorically denied that she had consented to the act.
HC Bench concluded that,“We are of the considered view that the sessions judge has lost sight of the provisions of Evidence Act, and consequently erred in the finding on the issue of consent itself”.
Source TOI
Picture Source :