In Criminal Appeal No.99 of 2016-BOM HC- Evidence of prosecutrix stands at higher pedestal than injured witness and needs no corroboration: Bombay HC upholds conviction of POCSO accused Justice A.S. Gadkari [11-08-2022]

feature-top

Read Order: VITTHAL RAJENDRA JOGADE V. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 

Mansimran Kaur

Mumbai, August 13, 2022: Affirming that corroboration is not the sine qua non for a conviction in a rape case, the Bombay High Court has reiterated that absence of any injuries on the person of the prosecutrix who was the helpless victim of rape might not by itself discredit the statement of the prosecutrix and in such a situation the non-production of a medical report would not be of much consequence if the other evidence was believable.

The Single Judge Bench of Justice A.S. Gadkari partly allowed the appeal instituted by the appeallant-accuded against the impugned judgment whereby the appellant was convicted under  Section 376(2)(i) of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 4 and 10 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offcences Act, 2012. The Bench was of the view that the imposition of sentence of 8 years rigorous imprisonment for the appellant would subserve the ends of justice.

The handicapped victim in the present case was about 11 years of age on the date of lodgment of the crime and nder the instructions of her mother, the victim called the Appellant for the  connection of cable TV in their newly constructed house. Later, the mother of the victim after completion of cable TV connection went along with Smt. Nagarbai Salgare to her agricultural land.

It was further alleged by the prosecution that the appellant closed the door and window of the house, raised the volume of the TV, pulled the victim towards him and pressed her body and inserted his fingers in her vagina. Victim therefore started to shout whereupon  and the Appellant ran away from her house. After this incident, the victim’s family member lodged the present crime. The Trial Court framed charges and the appellant was convicted. It was this impugned order that was assailed by the appellant by way of present appeal. 

The  evidence of prosecutrix stands at a higher pedestal than the  injured witness and needs no corroboration”, said the Bench while noting that the criminal law adheres in general to the principle of proportionality in prescribing liability according to the culpability of each kind of criminal conduct. Proportion between crime and punishment is a goal respected in principle and in spite of errant notions, it remains a strong influence in the determination of sentences, the Court further remarked. 

After taking into consideration the facts involved and overall view of the present case this Court was of the opinion that, imposition of sentence of 8 years rigorous imprisonment for the appellant would subserve the ends of justice.

In furtherance of the same, the Court upheld the conviction of the appellant under Section 376(2) (i) of the IPC and under Sections 4 and 10 of the POCSO Act. However, the appellant was directed to undergo maximum rigorous imprisonment for 8 years for the said offences committed by him and the appeal was partly allowed. 

Add a Comment