212-APPEAL-239-2015-J.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.239 OF 2015
ABHIJEET @ BABALU AVINASH KADAM )…APPELLANT
V/s.
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA ANR. )…RESPONDENTS
Mr.Ujwal Agandsurve, Advocate for the Appellant.
Mr.P.H.Gaikwad-Patil, APP for the Respondent – State.
CORAM : A. M. BADAR, J.
DATE : 19th NOVEMBER 2018
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1 By this appeal, the appellant/accused is challenging
the judgment and order dated 19th December 2014 passed by the
learned Special Judge, Solapur, in Sessions Case No.218 of 2013,
thereby convicting the appellant/accused of the offence
punishable under Section 6 of the Protection of Children from
avk 1/15
::: Uploaded on – 21/11/2018 23/11/2018 00:16:18 :::
212-APPEAL-239-2015-J.doc
Sexual Offences Act, 2012, (hereinafter referred to as POCSO Act
for the sake of brevity) and sentenced him to suffer rigorous
imprisonment for 10 years apart from payment of fine of
Rs.20,000/- and in default, to undergo further rigorous
imprisonment for 6 months.
2 Facts leading to the prosecution of the
appellant/accused can be summarized thus :
(a) PW3 Laxmi who is the First Informant in the instant case
used to reside at Damani Nagar, Solapur. PW1 is the victim
female child, who happens to be daughter of PW3 Laxmi. At
the time of alleged offence, the PW1/victim female child
was eight years old. She was taking education in 3rd
Standard. The appellant/accused used to reside in the
neighbourhood of the First Informant/PW3 Laxmi. The
alleged incident took place on 26 th March 2013. It was the
day of festival of Holi. At about 4.00 p.m. of that day, the
appellant/accused allured the PW1/victim female child by
offering some eatables and took her at the secluded place
avk 2/15
::: Uploaded on – 21/11/2018 23/11/2018 00:16:18 :::
212-APPEAL-239-2015-J.doc
near his house. She was taken by the backside of a four
wheeler vehicle. The appellant/accused then committed
penetrative sexual assault on her.
(b) It is case of the prosecution that in the evening of that day,
the PW1/victim female child did not take food. In that night,
she woke up with a sense for urination. However, she found
it difficult to urinate. In the morning hours the PW1/victim
female child again suffered trouble while urinating. Her
mother PW3 Laxmi then found private part of the PW1/
victim female child in swollen condition. The PW1/victim
female child was then taken to the hospital of Dr.Urmila
Jagtap. PW3 Laxmi was then told by the hospital authorities
to take the PW1/victim female child to the Civil Hospital,
Solapur. Thereafter, PW3 Laxmi made enquiry from her
daughter by taking her into confidence. Thereupon, the
PW1/victim female child divulged the details of penetrative
sexual assault on her by the appellant/accused. That is how,
PW3 Laxmi lodged report Exhibit 23 of the incident to Police
avk 3/15
::: Uploaded on – 21/11/2018 23/11/2018 00:16:18 :::
212-APPEAL-239-2015-J.doc
Station Foujdar Chawadi, Solapur, on 27th March 2013.
Accordingly, Crime No.70 of 2013 came to be registered
against the appellant/accused.
(c) The PW1/victim female child was sent for medical
examination to the Civil Hospital, Solapur, where she was
medically examined by PW5 Dr.Varsha Patil. During the
course of investigation clothes of the PW1/victim female
child as well as that of the appellant/accused came to be
seized by preparing Panchnamas Exhibits 34 and 35
respectively. The spot came to be inspected and Panchnama
Exhibit 32 came to be recorded. Seized articles were sent
for chemical analysis and on completion of routine
investigation, the appellant/accused came to be charge-
sheeted.
(d) The learned Special Judge, Solapur, then framed the Charge
for the offence punishable under Section 376(2)(f) of the
Indian Penal Code as well as under Section 6 of the POCSO
avk 4/15
::: Uploaded on – 21/11/2018 23/11/2018 00:16:18 :::
212-APPEAL-239-2015-J.doc
Act against the appellant/accused. He pleaded not guilty
and claimed trial.
(e) In order to bring home the guilt to the appellant/accused
the prosecution has examined in all six witnesses. The
victim female child is examined as PW1. Her neighbour
Shivaji Bhosale is examined as PW2. However, this witness
failed to support the prosecution case. First Informant
Laxmi who happens to be mother of the PW1/victim female
child is examined as PW3. The report lodged by her is at
Exhibit 23. Sarojani Patil, Police Sub-Inspector, is examined
as PW4. Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Solapur, Dr.Varsha
Patil is examined as PW5. Exhibits 27 and 29 are the
documents of medical examination of the PW1/victim
female child. Investigating Officer Abdul Karim Korbu,
Police Sub-Inspector is examined as PW6.
(f) Defence of the appellant/accused was that of total denial.
According to the defence, the prosecuting party was
avk 5/15
::: Uploaded on – 21/11/2018 23/11/2018 00:16:18 :::
212-APPEAL-239-2015-J.doc
interested in removing him from the locality with the help of
a Corporator named Sunil Khatake, and therefore, he is
falsely implicated in the crime in question. After hearing the
parties, by the impugned judgment and order, the learned
trial court was pleased to convict the appellant/accused of
the offence punishable under Section 6 of the POCSO Act.
Accordingly, he was sentenced as indicated in the opening
paragraph of this judgment.
3 I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the
appellant/accused. By taking me through the evidence of
prosecution witnesses and particularly through the evidence of the
Investigating Officer PW6 Abdul Karim Korbu, it was argued that
the PW1/victim female child was initially taken to Dr.Urmila
Jagtap. However, this witness is not examined by the prosecution.
It is further argued that evidence of the Investigating Officer
shows that Dr.Urmila Jagtap was unable to give opinion regarding
sexual assault on the PW1/victim female child. It is further
argued that the PW1/victim female child was also taken to
avk 6/15
::: Uploaded on – 21/11/2018 23/11/2018 00:16:18 :::
212-APPEAL-239-2015-J.doc
Dr.Halsurkar. However, this Medical Officer is also not examined
by the prosecution. Non-examination of the doctors who had
firstly attended the PW1/victim female child casts a shadow of
doubt on the case of the prosecution. The learned counsel for the
appellant/accused further argued that the appellant/accused at
the most could have been convicted for the offence punishable
under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and adequate
sentence could have been imposed on him instead of convicting
him under the stringent provisions of the POCSO Act.
4 The learned APP supported the impugned judgment
and order of conviction and the resultant sentence.
5 I have carefully considered the submissions so
advanced and also perused the record and proceedings including
oral as well as documentary evidence adduced by the prosecution.
As per provisions of Section 2(d) of the POCSO Act any person
below the age of 18 years is a child. The term “penetrative sexual
assault” is also defined by Section 3 of the said Act. It reads thus :
avk 7/15
::: Uploaded on – 21/11/2018 23/11/2018 00:16:18 :::
212-APPEAL-239-2015-J.doc
“3. Penetrative sexual assault –
A person is said to commit “penetrative sexual
assault” if-
(a) he penetrates his penis, to any extent, into the
vagina, mouth, urethra or anus of a child or makes
the child to do so with him or any other person; or
(b) he inserts, to any extent, any object or a part of
the body, not being the penis, into the vagina, the
urethra or anus of the child or makes the child to do
so with him or any other person; or
(c) he manipulates any part of the body of the child
so as to cause penetration into the vagina, urethra,
anus or any part of body of the child or makes the
child to do so with him or any other person; or
(d) he applies his mouth to the penis, vagina, anus,
urethra of the child or makes the child to do so to
such person or any other person.”
Perusal of the definition of penetrative sexual assault, as such,
makes it clear that even penetration of penis to a slightest extent
into the vagina of a child is sufficient to make out the offence of
penetrative sexual assault. Similarly, as provided by Section 5 of
the said Act, commission of penetrative sexual assault on a child
avk 8/15
::: Uploaded on – 21/11/2018 23/11/2018 00:16:18 :::
212-APPEAL-239-2015-J.doc
below 12 years of age amounts to the offence of aggravated
penetrative sexual assault which is made punishable under Section
6 of the said Act. Minimum sentence prescribed for this offence is
that of 10 years and it can extend up to imprisonment for life.
Section 42 of the POCSO Act provides for the alternate
punishment and if the act constitutes the offence punishable
under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, so also the offence
punishable under the POCSO Act, then the court is required to
impose punishment which is greater in degree on the accused
guilty of the offence punishable under the POCSO Act as well as
under the relevant provisions of the Indian Penal Code. Keeping in
mind these aspects, let us consider the case in hand.
6 The PW1/minor female child is the victim of the
offence alleged against the appellant/accused. Her deposition
reflects that at the time of entering in the witness box, she was 9
years of age. The incident took place on 26 th March 2013 and this
minor female child entered in the witness box on 18 th October
2014. Her evidence regarding her age is not even challenged by
avk 9/15
::: Uploaded on – 21/11/2018 23/11/2018 00:16:18 :::
212-APPEAL-239-2015-J.doc
the defence in the cross-examination. As per version of the
PW1/victim female child, the appellant/accused offered her some
eatable and took her behind a white coloured four wheeler vehicle
where she was denuded by the appellant/accused. Then, as
deposed by the PW1/victim female child, the appellant/accused
laid on her person. This child witness did not disclose the incident
to her friends nor made any hue and cry about the incident.
However, in chief-examination itself she had disclosed that the
appellant/accused had threatened her by saying that if she
disclosed the incident to anybody, he will finish her entire family.
She denied the suggestion that she had deposed at the instance of
her mother.
7 So far as age of the PW1/victim female child is
concerned, her mother PW3 Laxmi categorically deposed that at
the time of the incident, the PW1/victim female child was just 8
years old. This evidence is also not challenged in cross-
examination. As such, I see no reason to disbelieve the evidence
regarding age of the PW1/victim female child adduced by the
avk 10/15
::: Uploaded on – 21/11/2018 23/11/2018 00:16:18 :::
212-APPEAL-239-2015-J.doc
prosecution. It is, thus, clear that at the time of the incident in
question, the PW1/victim female child was about 8 years of age.
Considering her tender age, it is explicit that she was not in a
position to narrate in detail the act committed by the
appellant/accused on her by taking her to the secluded place.
Evidence regarding the penetrative sexual assault coming from the
mouth of the prosecutrix will have to be appreciated by keeping in
mind tender age of the victim child. Perusal of cross-examination
of the PW1/victim female child does not reflect that she is a
tutored witness. Her cross-examination does not reflect any
reason for false implication of the appellant/accused in the crime
in question.
8 It is well settled that while deciding the cases of sexual
assault on minor children, the court is bound to show a great
responsibility and such cases are required to be dealt with utmost
sensitivity. The court is required to keep in mind broader
probabilities of the prosecution case. Minor discrepancies and
contradictions which are not fatal in nature cannot be used to
avk 11/15
::: Uploaded on – 21/11/2018 23/11/2018 00:16:18 :::
212-APPEAL-239-2015-J.doc
jettison otherwise reliable prosecution case. Similarly, if evidence
of the victim of the sexual assault is found reliable and
trustworthy, then there is no need to corroborate the same with
other evidence. However, in the case in hand, version of the
PW1/victim female child is gaining corroboration from evidence
of PW5 Dr.Varsha Patil, Medical Officer, working in Civil Hospital,
Solapur, who examined her on the very next day i.e. on 27 th
March 2013. Evidence of PW5 Dr.Varsha Patil which is
corroborated by the contemporaneous medico legal documents
goes to show that on clinical examination of the PW1/victim
female child, this witness had found severe pain and inflammation
at vagina of the PW1/victim female child. This witness deposed
that skin all over the pubis, labia majora, labia minora, fourchette
and around anal canal of the PW1/victim female child was found
inflammed and the PW1/victim female child was suffering severe
pain on even touch to that part of her body. Thus, this finding,
upon examination of private part of the PW1/victim female child
indicates penetration, which is sufficient to make out the offence
punishable under Section 6 of the POCSO Act. In cross-
avk 12/15
::: Uploaded on – 21/11/2018 23/11/2018 00:16:18 :::
212-APPEAL-239-2015-J.doc
examination, PW5 Dr.Varsha Patil had rightly denied the
suggestion that such type of injuries can be suffered by a person
by a fall on rough surface. Thus, medical evidence also supports
the version of the PW1/victim female child regarding penetrative
sexual assault on her by the appellant/accused.
9 PW3 Laxmi – mother of the PW1/victim female child
has narrated the narrations of the PW1/victim female child to her
in the morning hours of the next day of the incident in question.
PW3 Laxmi deposed that after taking the PW1/victim female child
to the hospital of Dr.Smt.Jagtap, she took the PW1/victim female
child in confidence and enquired from her as to what happened.
Thereupon, the PW1/victim female child disclosed her that the
appellant/accused took her behind the car and committed
penetrative sexual assault on her. These recitals of the PW1/
victim female child made to her mother are admissible under
Section 157 of the Evidence Act. Therefore, evidence of the
PW1/victim female child is gaining corroboration from the
evidence of PW3 Laxmi.
avk 13/15
::: Uploaded on – 21/11/2018 23/11/2018 00:16:18 :::
212-APPEAL-239-2015-J.doc
10 It is seen that the mother of the PW1/victim female
child had taken her initially to a private hospital of Dr.Urmila
Jagtap. However, Dr.Urmila Jagtap had referred the PW1/victim
female child to the Civil Hospital. The prosecution has not
examined Dr.Urmila Jagtap though Dr.Urmila Jagtap was cited as
a prosecution witness. Similarly, it is seen that the PW1/victim
female child was also taken to Dr.Halsurkar, who is also not
examined by the prosecution. However, non-examination of these
Medical Officers would have been of some consequence, if the
defence could have shown that available evidence is lacunic or
insufficient. Such is not the case in hand. Therefore, non-
examination of these two witnesses by the prosecution is of no
consequence.
11 As the prosecution has established penetrative sexual
assault on the PW1/victim female child, who at the relevant time
was 8 years of age, it cannot be said that the learned Special
Judge erred in convicting the appellant/accused of the offence
punishable under Section 6 of the POCSO Act. Minimum sentence
avk 14/15
::: Uploaded on – 21/11/2018 23/11/2018 00:16:18 :::
212-APPEAL-239-2015-J.doc
prescribed for this offence is that of 10 years. Therefore, I find no
merit in submission of the learned counsel for the
appellant/accused that as the appellant/accused has already
undergone 5 years of jail sentence, he deserves leniency.
12 In the result, the appeal is devoid of merit, and hence
the order :
ORDER
The appeal is dismissed.
(A. M. BADAR, J.)
avk 15/15
::: Uploaded on - 21/11/2018 23/11/2018 00:16:18 :::