APPEAL-1558-2018.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1558 OF 2018
SHIVRAM @ BALU KHANDU JAGTAP )…APPELLANT
V/s.
1) THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA )
)
2) SARITA SANTOSH GUPTA )…RESPONDENTS
Mr.D.H.Kumthekar, Advocate for the Appellant.
Mr.Amit Palkar, APP for the Respondent – State.
CORAM : A. M. BADAR, J.
DATE : 3rd OCTOBER 2019
JUDGMENT :
1 By this appeal, the appellant/convicted accused is
challenging the judgment and order dated 3 rd November 2018
passed by the learned Designated Judge for the Protection of
Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter referred to
as the POCSO Act for the sake of brevity), Greater Mumbai, in
POCSO Special Case No.333 of 2016 convicting him of offences
avk 1
::: Uploaded on – 04/10/2019 04/10/2019 23:00:49 :::
APPEAL-1558-2018.doc
punishable under Sections 363, Section376 and Section354 of the Indian Penal
Code as well as under Sections 4 and 8 of the POCSO Act. For
the offence punishable under Section 363 of the Indian Penal
Code, the appellant/convicted accused is sentenced to suffer
rigorous imprisonment for 5 years apart from direction to pay fine
of Rs.1,000/- and in default, to undergo further rigorous
imprisonment for 1 month. For offences punishable under Section
376 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 4 of the POCSO
Act, he is separately sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for
15 years apart from direction to pay fine of Rs.2,000/- and in
default, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for 2 months.
Similarly, for offences punishable under Section 354 of the Indian
Penal Code and under Section 8 of the POCSO Act, he is
separately sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 5 years
apart from direction to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default, to
undergo further rigorous imprisonment for 1 month. Substantive
sentences are directed to run concurrently.
avk 2
::: Uploaded on – 04/10/2019 04/10/2019 23:00:49 :::
APPEAL-1558-2018.doc
2 Facts, in brief, leading to the prosecution and the
resultant conviction of the appellant/convicted accused, can be
summarized thus :
(a) PW1 Sarita, who is mother of the victim female child/PW5
used to reside at Siddharth Colony of Chembur, Mumbai,
along with her husband and three children. Her children
used to study at B.D.Shukla School, Mumbai. The victim of
the crime in question is a female child, who at the relevant
time was aged about 5 years. The incident in question
allegedly took place after 3.00 p.m. of 8th May 2016. On that
day, father of the victim female child/PW5 returned to his
house in the afternoon. He gave one rupee to the victim
female child/PW5 for having a chocolate. The victim female
child/PW5 then left the house for purchasing the chocolate.
She, then, went for playing.
(b) According to the prosecution case, the appellant/convicted
accused is the resident of the locality where the victim female
child/PW5 used to reside with her parents. He met the
avk 3
::: Uploaded on – 04/10/2019 04/10/2019 23:00:49 :::
APPEAL-1558-2018.doc
victim female child/PW5 and allured her with an ice-candy.
He took her at the mezzanine floor of the house of PW6 Sajan
Rupwate. At that time, inmates of that house had been to
Nashik for attending a marriage. The appellant/convicted
accused used to fill water at the house of PW6 Sajan Rupwate
and therefore, he had left the keys of that house with
neighbour Vandana Ugde. That is how, the appellant/
convicted accused came in possession of the keys of that
house. After taking the victim female child/PW5 to that
house, the appellant/convicted accused removed her
underwear and inserted his finger in her private part. She
started weeping. The appellant/convicted accused applied
coconut oil on her vagina and gave namkeen to her for
eating. He, then, took her downstairs and left her on the
pretext that he was going for purchasing the ice candy.
(c) The victim female child/PW5 returned to her housed and at
that time, her lips were red. Upon being questioned by her
mother – PW1 Sarita, she told her that the uncle had given
avk 4
::: Uploaded on – 04/10/2019 04/10/2019 23:00:49 :::
APPEAL-1558-2018.doc
ice candy to her for eating. Immediately thereafter, the victim
female child/PW5 also disclosed to her mother that the said
uncle had taken her to mezzanine floor of the house and
committed penetrative sexual assault on her.
(d) Upon hearing the incident of penetrative sexual assault on
her daughter i.e. the victim female child/PW5, PW1 Sarita
took her daughter to the locality by asking her to show who is
that uncle. Her daughter – the victim female child/PW5
then took her to a chicken shop and showed one person
standing in front of that shop. She disclosed that the said
person had committed sexual assault on her. PW1 Sarita then
identified the said person as the appellant/convicted accused.
She tried to catch hold of him. However, he ran away.
Thereafter, PW1 Sarita went to Police Station Chembur and
lodged the First Information Report (FIR) Exhibit 15 which
resulted in registration of Crime No.155 of 2016 against the
appellant/convicted accused.
avk 5
::: Uploaded on – 04/10/2019 04/10/2019 23:00:49 :::
APPEAL-1558-2018.doc
(e) Routine investigation followed. The victim female child/PW5
was sent for medical examination to the Sion Hospital,
Mumbai. The spot was inspected in presence of PW2 Pradeep
Yadav – panch witness and Spot Panchnama Exhibit 17 came
to be prepared on 9th May 2016. Bottle of oil as well as
namkeen “shev” lying there came to be seized from the
mezzanine floor of the said house vide said Spot Panchnama.
Clothes of the victim female child/PW5 so that of the
appellant/convicted accused came to be seized in presence of
PW3 Vicky Gupta vide Panchnama Exhibit 19 on 11th May
2016. Blood stained pillow covers lying on the spot of the
incident came to be seized in presence of PW4 Ratna Vimal
vide Seizure Panchnama Exhibit 21 on 9th May 2016. On
completion of routine investigation, the appellant/ convicted
accused came to be charge-sheeted.
(f) The learned trial court framed and explained the Charge to
the appellant/convicted accused. He pleaded not guilty and
claimed trial.
avk 6
::: Uploaded on – 04/10/2019 04/10/2019 23:00:49 :::
APPEAL-1558-2018.doc
(g) In order to bring home the guilt to the appellant/convicted
accused, the prosecution has examined in all nine witnesses.
Defence of the appellant/convicted accused was that of total
denial.
(h) After hearing the parties, by the impugned judgment and
order, the learned trial court was pleased to convict the
appellant/accused and sentenced him accordingly, as
indicated in the opening paragraph of this judgment.
3 I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the
appellant/convicted accused. He vehemently argued that evidence
of the prosecution is not consistent and particularly PW1 Sarita
and PW2 Pradeep Yadav are not corroborating each other. He
further argued that age of the victim female child/PW5 is not
proved. Medical evidence is not corroborating the version of the
victim female child/PW5 regarding the penetrative sexual assault.
The learned counsel further argued that according to the
prosecution case, the victim female child/PW5 was playing with
boys in the locality, but statement of not a single boy is recorded.
avk 7
::: Uploaded on – 04/10/2019 04/10/2019 23:00:49 :::
APPEAL-1558-2018.doc
The Test Identification Parade was not conducted by the
prosecution. The learned counsel further argued that as the
medical evidence is not corroborating the version of the victim
female child/PW5 and as hymen of the victim female child/PW5
was found intact, neither the offence punishable under Section 4
of the POCSO Act nor that of Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code
is proved.
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.
6 In the case in hand, the prosecution will have to prove
that the victim female child/PW5 was a child as defined by
Section 2(d) of the POCSO Act and at the time of commission of
the alleged incident, she was below 18 years of age. The
avk 8
::: Uploaded on – 04/10/2019 04/10/2019 23:00:49 :::
APPEAL-1558-2018.doc
prosecution has placed on record Birth Certificate of the victim
female child/PW5 issued by the Sub-Registrar under the
Registration of Births and SectionDeaths Act, 1969. This Birth Certificate
is issued under the provisions of Sections 12 and Section17 of the
Registration of Births and SectionDeaths Act, 1969 as well as Rules 8 and
13 of the Maharashtra Registration of Births and Deaths Rules,
2000. As per provisions of Rule 9 of the Maharashtra Registration
of Births and Deaths Rules, 1976, this Certificate is issued by the
Sub-Registrar acting under the provisions of the Registration of
Births and SectionDeaths Act, 1969. Section 7 thereof deals with
appointment of Registrars for each local area comprising the area
within the jurisdiction of the Municipality, Panchayat or other
local authority. It is the duty of the Registrar to register every birth
and every death which takes place in his jurisdiction. SectionThis Act
mandates that the Registrar should discharge his duties carefully.
Section 8 of this Act mandates each head of the house to report
birth in the family to the Registrar. SectionThe Act provides for
maintenance of register for recording birth and death within the
local area. That is how, certificate came to be issued by the Sub-
avk 9
::: Uploaded on – 04/10/2019 04/10/2019 23:00:49 :::
APPEAL-1558-2018.doc
Registrar as per provisions of Sections 12 and Section17 of the said Act.
The Birth Certificate, as such, is issued by the Public Officer and it
is a document forming the record of the acts of the Public Officer
and therefore the same is a public document within the meaning
of the said term as per provisions of Section 74 of the Indian
Evidence Act, 1872. The same is admissible in evidence by mere
production thereof in view of provisions of Section 77 of the
Evidence Act. Section 17 of the Registration of Births and SectionDeaths
Act, 1969, provides for search of Birth Register and supply of
extract thereof by certifying the same by the Registrar or other
authorized Officer. Section 17 of the said Act provides that such
extract shall be admissible in evidence for the purpose of proving
birth or death to which the entry relates. The Birth Certificate is,
infact, the extract of Birth Register in respect of entry of birth of
the victim child/PW5, and as such, admissible in evidence.
Section 35 of the Evidence Act, 1872, makes it clear that if entry is
made by public servant in the official book in discharge of his
official duty, then such entry becomes the relevant fact and
admissible in evidence. Section 35 of the Indian Evidence Act lays
avk 10
::: Uploaded on – 04/10/2019 04/10/2019 23:00:49 :::
APPEAL-1558-2018.doc
down that entry in any public, official book, register, record
stating a fact in issue or relevant fact and made by a public
servant in the discharge of his official duty specially enjoined by
the law of the country is itself the relevant fact. To render a
document admissible under Section 35, three conditions must be
satisfied, firstly, entry that is relied on must be one in a public or
other official book, register or record, secondly, it must be an entry
stating a fact in issue or relevant fact; and thirdly, it must be made
by a public servant in discharge of his official duty, or any other
person in performance of a duty specially enjoined by law. It is,
thus, clear that the Birth Certificate issued by the statutorily
appointed competent authority is relevant and admissible. The
same is a public document and it constitutes primary evidence.
Proof of contents of a public document can be had by production
thereof as envisaged by Section 77 of the Evidence Act. In this
view of the matter, no formal proof of the Birth Certificate issued
by the competent authority under the provisions of the
Registration of Births and SectionDeaths Act, 1969 and Rules framed
thereunder is required.
avk 11
::: Uploaded on – 04/10/2019 04/10/2019 23:00:49 :::
APPEAL-1558-2018.doc
7 This court in the case of Mahadeo S/o Kerba Maske Vs.
State of Maharashtra and Anr.1 has held that Rule 12(3) of the
Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007, is
applicable in determining the age of the victim of rape. Rule 12(3)
reads as under:
“Rule 12(3) : In every case concerning a child or
juvenile in conflict with law, the age determination
inquiry shall be conducted by the court or the Board
or, as the case may be, the Committee by seeking
evidence by obtaining –
(a)(i) the matriculation or equivalent certificates,
if available; and in the absence whereof;
(ii) the date of birth certificate from the school
(other than a play school) first attended; and in the
absence whereof;
(iii) the birth certificate given by a corporation
or a municipal authority or a panchayat;
(b) and only in the absence of either (i), (ii) or
(iii) of clause (a) above, the medical opinion will be
sought from a duly constituted Medical Board,
which will declare the age of the juvenile or child.
In case exact assessment of the age cannot be done,
the Court or the Board or, as the case may be, the
1 (2013) 14 SCC 637
avk 12
::: Uploaded on – 04/10/2019 04/10/2019 23:00:49 :::
APPEAL-1558-2018.doc
Committee, for the reasons to be recorded by them,
may, if considered necessary, give benefit to the
child or juvenile by considering his/her age on
lower side within the margin of one year. and, while
passing orders in such case shall, after taking into
consideration such evidence as may be available, or
the medical opinion, as the case may be, record a
finding in respect of his age and either of the
evidence specified in any of the clauses (a)(i), (ii),
(iii) or in the absence whereof, clause (b) shall be
the conclusive proof of the age as regards such child
or the juvenile in conflict with law.”
8 The Birth Certificate at Exhibit 44A shows that the
victim female child/PW5 was born on 27th July 2011 and the
incident in question took place on 8th May 2016. As such, at the
relevant time, she was about 5 years of age and certainly below 12
years of age. The learned trial court, as such, ought to have
framed the Charge for the offence punishable under Section 6 of
the POCSO Act. However, no such Charge for the aggravated
penetrative sexual assault was framed. The appellant/convicted
accused is not convicted for the offence of aggravated penetrative
avk 13
::: Uploaded on – 04/10/2019 04/10/2019 23:00:49 :::
APPEAL-1558-2018.doc
sexual assault punishable under Section 6 of the POCSO Act.
Thus, State has not challenged the impugned judgment and order
on that count.
9 Be that as it may, now let us examined evidence of the
victim female child/PW5. As stated, she was about 5 years of age
and as such, she is a child witness. The question is whether the
testimony of the child witness can be relied upon for basing
conviction in such a serious offence. The Hon’ble Supreme Court
in Radhey Shyam Vs. State of Rajasthan2 has laid down the law
regarding appreciation of evidence of child witness. Paragraph 12
of that judgment reads thus :
“12 In Panchhi, (1998 SCC (Cri) 1561) after
reiterating the same principles, this Court observed
that the evidence of a child witness must be
evaluated more carefully and with greater
circumspection because a child is susceptible to be
swayed by what others tell him and, thus, a child
witness is an easy pray to tutoring. This Court
further observed that the courts have held that the
evidence of a child witness must find adequate
2 (2014) 5 SCC 389
avk 14
::: Uploaded on – 04/10/2019 04/10/2019 23:00:49 :::
APPEAL-1558-2018.doc
corroboration before it is relied upon. But, it is
more a rule of practical wisdom than of law. It is
not necessary to refer to other judgments cited by
learned counsel because they reiterate the same
principles. The conclusion which can be deduced
from the relevant pronouncements of this Court is
that the evidence of a child witness must be
subjected to close scrutiny to rule out the possibility
of tutoring. It can be relied upon if the court finds
that the child witness has sufficient intelligence and
understanding of the obligation of an oath. As a
matter of caution, the court must find adequate
corroboration to the child witness’s evidence. If
found, reliable and truthful and corroborated by
other evidence on record, it can be accepted
without hesitation. We will scrutinize PW-2
Banwari’s evidence in light of the above principles.”
10 Now let us examine whether evidence of the victim
female child/PW5 is reliable and trustworthy and whether it is
free from infection of tutoring. It is in evidence of the victim
female child/PW5 that by taking amount of one rupee from her
father, she purchased a chocolate and ate it. Thereafter, she was
avk 15
::: Uploaded on – 04/10/2019 04/10/2019 23:00:49 :::
APPEAL-1558-2018.doc
playing and one uncle came. He told that he would give an ice
candy to her, if she comes with him. As per version of the victim
female child/PW5, she then went with that uncle to his home.
She was taken at the first floor. He laid her down, removed her
underwear and inserted his finger in her private part. Thereafter,
he gave namkeen “shev” to her for eating. She was then taken
downstairs. The victim female child/PW5 further stated that then
that uncle told her that he would bring ice candy for her. This is
the narration of incident by the victim female child/PW5 before
the court. In cross-examination she admitted that she had been to
the court twice or thrice on earlier occasion along with her parents
and police uncle. She admitted that she never went to the house
of the appellant/convicted accused till date. She admitted that at
the police station, police in uniform made inquiries from her. She
stated in her cross-examination that after the incident, the
appellant/convicted accused was not shown to her and she had
seen him for the first time in the court. Some minor omissions
were sought to be brought on record from her cross-examination
but those are not on material particulars. Not visiting the house of
avk 16
::: Uploaded on – 04/10/2019 04/10/2019 23:00:49 :::
APPEAL-1558-2018.doc
the appellant/convicted accused is an irrelevant factor, as
according to the prosecution case, the victim female child/PW5
was taken by the appellant/convicted accused to the house of
PW6 Sajan Rupwate and not to his own house. Inquiry with the
victim female child/PW5 by the police cannot throw any doubt on
her version. Similarly, if the victim female child/PW5 attended
the court for the purpose of recording her evidence and if that
work was not done, the victim female child/PW5 cannot be
blamed. Cross-examination of the victim female child/PW5 does
not show that she was tutored by anybody else to depose a lie
against the appellant/convicted accused.
11 As per version of the victim female child/PW5, after
the incident she returned to her house. Therefore, evidence of her
mother PW1 Sarita becomes important. PW1 Sarita has stated
that when the victim female child/PW5 returned back, she noticed
her lips and hands were stained with red colour. Her daughter
then informed her that it was because she had ice candy given by
the uncle. PW1 Sarita disclosed that her daughter i.e. the victim
avk 17
::: Uploaded on – 04/10/2019 04/10/2019 23:00:49 :::
APPEAL-1558-2018.doc
female child/PW5 narrated the incident to her by stating that she
was taken to the mezzanine floor of the house by the uncle and
there the said uncle inserted finger in her vagina. PW1 Sarita
stated that the victim female child/PW5 had disclosed to her that
as she started crying, said uncle applied oil to her vagina and gave
some namkeen to her for eating. As per version of this mother –
PW1 Sarita, then her daughter – the victim female child/PW5
took her near the chicken shop and told that the person standing
in front of that chicken shop is the same uncle, who had taken her.
Evidence of PW1 Sarita shows that she was knowing that person
as he used to be at the flour mill in the locality. She, therefore,
attempted to apprehend him but he ran away. Hence, as per
version of PW1 Sarita, she went to Chembur Police Station and
lodged report Exhibit 15 on the very same day. From cross-
examination of this witness, some insignificant omissions are
brought on record. It is further brought on record that she was
not on visiting terms with the appellant/convicted accused nor she
used to talk with him.
avk 18
::: Uploaded on – 04/10/2019 04/10/2019 23:00:49 :::
APPEAL-1558-2018.doc
12 Perusal of evidence of PW1 Sarita shows that she has
proved the former statement made to her by her daughter – the
victim female child/PW5, which gives vivid details of the incident
of commission of penetrative sexual assault on the victim female
child/PW5 by the appellant/convicted accused. While in the
witness box, the victim female child/PW5 as well as her mother
PW1 Sarita have duly identified the appellant/convicted accused
as the person who committed penetrative sexual assault on the
victim female child/PW5 and the person who was pointed out as
the perpetrator of the crime in question, by the victim female
child/PW5.
13 During the course of investigation, the Spot
Panchnama came to be prepared in presence of PW2 Pradeep
Yadav. As per version of this panch witness, on 9 th May 2016
itself, this was done. During inspection of this spot, this panch
witness found bottle containing oil on the spot of the incident, so
also namkeen “shev” thereat. While effecting spot panchnama
Exhibit 17, those articles came to be seized by the Investigator.
avk 19
::: Uploaded on – 04/10/2019 04/10/2019 23:00:49 :::
APPEAL-1558-2018.doc
This evidence reflecting situation prevalent on the spot of the
incident, corroborates version of the victim female child/PW5 in
respect of penetrative sexual assault on her.
14 Evidence of PW6 Sajan Rupwate shows that the house,
where the incident took place, belongs to him and he and his
family members were away from his house from 6th May 2016 as
they had gone to attend the marriage at Nashik. Evidence of this
witness shows that he was called back due to the incident and in
presence of the police, he broke open the lock of his house.
Thereafter, the spot panchnama came to be prepared. This implies
that situation on the spot of the incident was undisturbed till PW6
Sajan Rupwate opened his house, in the night intervening 8 th May
2016 and 9th May 2016. His evidence further shows that the
appellant/convicted accused used to fetch water at his house and
for that purpose, he had given keys of his house to his neighbour
Vandana Ugde. Evidence of the victim female child/PW5 stands
corroborated by this evidence.
avk 20
::: Uploaded on – 04/10/2019 04/10/2019 23:00:49 :::
APPEAL-1558-2018.doc
15 The victim female child/PW5 was sent for medical
examination to the Sion Hospital, Mumbai. Report of her medical
examination is at Exhibit 23. The same was read in evidence by
exhibiting it by the learned trial court because the same came to
be admitted by the defence. Perusal of this undisputed report of
medical examination of the victim female child/PW5 shows that
she was taken to the Sion Hospital immediately after the incident
and on 8th May 2016 itself. History given to the Medical Officer by
the victim female child/PW5 as well as her mother – PW1 Sarita
is also reflecting in this undisputed document. History recorded
by the Medical Officer is to the effect that the victim female child/
PW5 was taken by the appellant/convicted accused. She was
given some snacks for eating. The victim female child/PW5
further stated that the appellant/convicted accused removed
undergarments of the victim female child/PW5 and inserted his
finger into her vagina. Thus, soon after the incident, the victim
female child/PW5 had given the history of penetrative sexual
assault on her which is reflected from the medical case papers.
avk 21
::: Uploaded on – 04/10/2019 04/10/2019 23:00:49 :::
APPEAL-1558-2018.doc
16 Report of the medical examination of the victim female
child/PW5 at Exhibit 23 shows that hymen of the victim female
child/PW5 was intact and there was no bleeding from her vagina.
On this aspect, material elicited from cross-examination of the
victim female child/PW5 is relevant. She was questioned by the
cross-examiner as to, to what extent the finger was penetrated in
her vagina. She answered that the penetration was slight. This
material from cross-examination of the victim female child/PW5
clarifies as to why her hymen was intact and there was no
bleeding. Even otherwise, it is a settled legal position that the
medical evidence is also a corroborative piece of evidence but
where the medical evidence does not support the otherwise
clinching and trustworthy ocular evidence of any material witness
then, the testimony of such ocular evidence will prevail on the
medical opinion and not vice versa. In the case of SectionRanjit Hazarika
v. State of Assam3, the opinion of the doctor was that no rape
appeared to have committed because of the absence of rupture of
hymen and injuries on the private part of the prosecutrix, the
Apex Court took a view that the medical opinion cannot throw
3 (1998) 8 SCC 635
avk 22
::: Uploaded on – 04/10/2019 04/10/2019 23:00:49 :::
APPEAL-1558-2018.doc
over board an otherwise cogent and trustworthy evidence of the
prosecutrix.
17 The Honourable Apex Court in SectionB.C.Deva v. State of
Karnataka4, inspite of the fact that no injuries were found on
person of the prosecutrix, yet finding her version to be reliable
and trustworthy, the Honourable Apex Court upheld the
conviction of the accused. The Court observed that :
“18 The plea that no marks of injuries were
found either on the person of the accused or the
person of the prosecutrix, does not lead to any
inference that the accused has not committed
forcible sexual intercourse on the prosecutrix.
Though the report of the gynaecologist pertaining to
the medical examination of the prosecutrix does not
disclose any evidence of sexual intercourse, yet even
in the absence of any corroboration of medical
evidence, the oral testimony of the prosecutrix,
which is found to be cogent, reliable, convincing and
trustworthy has to be accepted.”
4 (2007) 12 SCC 122
avk 23
::: Uploaded on – 04/10/2019 04/10/2019 23:00:49 :::
APPEAL-1558-2018.doc
18 In the light of foregoing reasons, no infirmity can be
found in the impugned judgment and order of conviction as well
as the resultant sentence imposed on the appellant/convicted
accused by the learned trial court. The appeal, as such, is devoid
of merits. Therefore, the order :
ORDER
The appeal is dismissed.
(A. M. BADAR, J.)
avk 24
::: Uploaded on – 04/10/2019 04/10/2019 23:00:49 :::