- Case
- VILAS LAXMAN CHAWAN v. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR (Bombay High Court, 04-04-2025)
- Law
- Code of Criminal Procedure, Indian Evidence Act, Indian Penal Code.
Facts: A 4-year-old girl went missing while buying snacks. The Appellant, aged 20, brought her back, claiming he found her with a stranger and assaulted the stranger. The girl was bleeding. The father filed a police complaint. The medical examination confirmed rape. The Appellant was convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge under Sections 363, 366A, and 376(2)(f) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
Procedural Posture: The Appellant appealed the Additional Sessions Judge's conviction to the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, arguing inconsistencies in witness testimonies, a dubious chain of custody for DNA samples, and a hostile witness regarding the seizure of clothes.
Issue: Was the conviction of the Appellant for offences under Sections 363, 366A, and 376(2)(f) of the IPC justified, considering the evidence presented, including the victim's testimony, medical evidence, and DNA analysis, and addressing the concerns raised regarding the chain of custody of evidence and witness testimonies?
Holding: The High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the conviction and sentence awarded to the Appellant by the Additional Sessions Judge.
Reasoning: The Court relied heavily on the victim's testimony, which it found consistent and confidence-inspiring, even after a four-year gap. The Court noted that the victim's testimony was corroborated by her mother's statement and the medical evidence. The DNA analysis further supported the prosecution's case, as the victim's anal and para urethral swab matched the Appellant. The Court addressed the arguments regarding the chain of custody of the DNA samples, finding no significant discrepancies. The Court also considered the Appellant's failure to provide any explanation for finding the victim with another person. The Court cited Supreme Court precedents, including Nirmal Premkumar v. State represented by Inspector of Police, emphasizing that the testimony of the victim in sexual offence cases is vital and can be acted upon without corroboration if it inspires confidence. The Court distinguished the present case from instances where the prosecutrix's testimony was inconsistent or unreliable.
