Bombay High Court: Vibha Kankanwadi, J., upheld the Special Court’s decision for conviction of a person accused of having committed unnatural intercourse with a 9 year old child.
Appellant had been accused for the offence punishable under Section 4 of the Protection of Child from Sexual Offences Act.
Accused had committed unnatural intercourse with the minor victim who was 9 years old.
After the above stated incident the victim and his father went to the police station and lodged a report.
Special Judge framed charged for the offence punishable under Section 377 of Penal Code, 1860 and Section 4 of POCSO Act. After the trial, Special Judge held the accused guilty for offence punishable under Section 4 of POCSO Act.
Accused aggrieved with the above, filed the present appeal.
Bench while observing the matter, noted that the medical officer stated that there was no sign of recent tears, no abrasion, contusion or any injury to the private part, though the ultimate conclusion that he stated was “findings are consistent with entry of penis into anus”.
Special Judge did not consider the fact that victim’s father and the accused had some enmity, and on the said basis it could have been drawn that there was possibility of false implication of the accused. The child could have been tutored.
Withe regard to the enmity aspect between the parties, Court’s opinion was that, even if for the sake of arguments it is accepted that there is such civil dispute; yet, the gravity does not appear to be so that with the help of a small child, the father would level such kind of allegations against the accused.
Further medical officer’s statement was also noted wherein following was stated, not found any recent tears, stains due to semen, blood, faecal matters around the anus or there was no injury or no mark of violence, yet, he has stated that when he had digitally examined the anus, he had found the tone of the sphincter to be hypotonic.
Thus, when the medical evidence supported the victim and there was nothing in the cross examination of the victim to discard his evidence or brand it as unbelievable or untrustworthy, then the facts stated were sufficient to come to the conclusion that the accused committed the offence.
Therefore, Special Court was justified in holding that the prosecution had proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and proceeded to convict him.
Present appeal was dismissed in the above-view. [Mahesh Sambhaji Chafle v. State of Maharashtra, 2020 SCC OnLine Bom 705 , decided on 12-06-2020]