Court’s Decision
The Chhattisgarh High Court dismissed the three criminal appeals filed by the appellants and upheld their conviction under Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act. The appellants were sentenced to 20 years’ rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of ₹5,000 each. The Court found that the victim was a minor aged 13 years and that there was ample medical, forensic, and testimonial evidence to establish gang rape.
“Injury found in the private parts of the accused on examination immediately after the incident indicates their involvement in sexual crime.”
Facts
The case arises from an incident on 26 April 2019, when the victim, then aged 13 years, attended a wedding in her village. Around 11 p.m., she and her friend Gayatri went to the field due to lack of toilets at the wedding venue. There, they were allegedly accosted by four boys. The victim was gagged, dragged, and raped by three boys in turns. She later identified the accused as Pinku Kashyap, Panku Kashyap, and Manoj @ Kanwal Baghel.
The next day, the victim lodged an FIR. The police carried out a detailed investigation, including medical examinations of the victim and the accused, recovery of the victim’s clothing, and collection of forensic evidence. The victim’s age was confirmed through school records.
Issues
- Whether the victim was a minor at the time of the incident.
- Whether the prosecution established the offence of gang rape under Section 6 of the POCSO Act.
- Whether the accused were falsely implicated and if the testimonies lacked reliability.
Petitioner’s Arguments
All three appellants argued that the conviction was based solely on the victim’s testimony without any reliable corroboration. They challenged the identification, claiming the incident occurred in darkness and that the names of the accused were only known after police involvement. They also raised contradictions in the victim’s statement and pointed to the lack of injuries or medical evidence proving rape. Appellant Panku specifically contended that being a minor, his sentencing as an adult was improper.
They further alleged procedural lapses, such as absence of birth certificates or ossification tests to determine the victim’s age, and inconsistencies in witness testimonies.
Respondent’s Arguments
The State opposed the appeals, highlighting that:
- The victim was conclusively proven to be 13 years old through school records (Ex.P-15C).
- Medical evidence showed signs of recent sexual assault within 24 hours of the incident.
- Forensic reports confirmed the presence of human semen on the victim’s clothing and on the underwear of the accused.
- Injuries were found on the private parts of at least two accused.
- The testimonies of the prosecutrix and her friend Gayatri were consistent and credible.
The State cited the serious nature of the offence and urged the Court to uphold the sentence.
Analysis of the Law
The Court noted that under Section 29 of the POCSO Act, there is a presumption of guilt once prosecution establishes foundational facts. The burden then shifts on the accused to rebut this presumption, which they failed to do.
The Court also reiterated that under Section 2(d) of the POCSO Act, a child is any person below 18 years. The victim’s school admission register (Ex.P-15C) and corroborating oral testimonies of her father and the Ashram Superintendent confirmed her date of birth as 06.07.2006.
Precedent Analysis
The Court referred to the following decisions:
- State of Punjab v. Gurmeet Singh – emphasized the need to rely on the testimony of the victim even without corroboration if it is trustworthy.
- Rai Sandeep @ Deenu v. State of NCT of Delhi – defined the characteristics of a ‘sterling witness’.
- State of H.P. v. Shree Kant Shekar – reiterated that a prosecutrix is not an accomplice, and her testimony can be the sole basis for conviction.
- Nawabuddin v. State of Uttarakhand – held that offences under POCSO must be dealt with stringently and without leniency.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court observed:
- The victim was consistent in her statement regarding the sequence of events and identification of the accused.
- The testimonies of the prosecutrix and her friend Gayatri were found credible, and supported by medical and forensic evidence.
- The presence of injuries on the private parts of the accused, unexplained by them, pointed strongly towards their involvement.
- The finding of human semen and sperm in the victim’s underwear and that of the accused, corroborated the occurrence of rape.
- No delay or mala fide intention was proved in filing the FIR.
- The accused failed to rebut the presumption under the POCSO Act.
Conclusion
The Court concluded that the prosecution had successfully established the offence under Section 6 of the POCSO Act. The evidence of the prosecutrix was found reliable and corroborated by medical and forensic records. The appeals were dismissed, and the conviction and sentence of 20 years rigorous imprisonment were affirmed.
“A murderer destroys the physical body of his victim, a rapist degrades the very soul of the helpless female.”
Implications
- Reinforces that the testimony of a minor prosecutrix, if trustworthy, can be the basis of conviction even without direct eyewitnesses.
- Demonstrates the importance of prompt forensic and medical evidence in sexual assault cases.
- Clarifies that injury on the private parts of the accused, in the absence of rebuttal, is a strong indicator of involvement in the offence.
- Upholds the legislative intent of the POCSO Act to offer heightened protection to minors.
FAQs
1. Can a minor victim’s testimony alone lead to conviction in a POCSO case?
Yes. The Court held that if the testimony of a minor victim is trustworthy and consistent, it can be the sole basis of conviction even without corroboration.
2. Is medical evidence necessary to prove rape under POCSO?
Medical evidence strengthens the case but is not mandatory if the victim’s testimony is credible. In this case, the presence of injuries and forensic reports bolstered the prosecution’s case.
3. What if the accused is also a minor at the time of offence?
The Court held that if a minor is found fit for trial as an adult under the Juvenile Justice Act, he can be sentenced accordingly, as was done with one of the appellants.
