- Case
- PRASHANT @ GUDDU SHANKARRAO @ VIJAY INGLE v. STATE OF MAH., THR. P.S.O. PS MURTIZAPUR, DISTAKOLA (Bombay High Court, 18-03-2025)
- Law
- Indian Penal Code, Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act.
Facts: The appellant was convicted by the Sessions Court for offences under Sections 354, 448, 450, 376(i)(j) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Sections 3 and 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act) based on a report filed by Nita Gawai. The report alleged that the appellant entered her house while her husband was away and committed "bad acts" with her 1 ½ year old daughter. The informant stated that the accused touched the victim's private parts. The accused claimed false implication due to a monetary dispute.
Procedural Posture: The appellant challenged his conviction in the High Court, arguing that the informant's testimony contained material variations and omissions, and that the medical evidence was insufficient to prove penetration. The State argued that the informant's evidence was corroborated by medical evidence and the testimony of other witnesses.
Issue: Was the conviction of the appellant under Sections 354, 448, 450, 376(i)(j) of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the POCSO Act sustainable based on the evidence presented, and was the sentence imposed by the trial court appropriate?
Holding: The High Court upheld the conviction but reduced the sentence from life imprisonment to 10 years rigorous imprisonment, maintaining the fine.
Reasoning: The Court found that the prosecution had proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt. While acknowledging some improvements in the informant's evidence, the Court deemed them not significant enough to render her testimony doubtful. The Court noted that the informant had explained the "exact bad things" done by the appellant. The medical evidence, which indicated redness around the victim's peri-urethral region and labia minora, along with a hymeneal tear, corroborated the informant's account of penetration. However, the Court considered the life imprisonment sentence to be harsh and excessive, reducing it to 10 years rigorous imprisonment to meet the ends of justice. The Court stated, "In the light of evidence of P.W.1, it can be said that the appellant has committed penetrative sexual assault on the victim and the said fact is corroborated by the medical evidence."
