In a significant ruling, the High Court of Chhattisgarh has upheld the conviction of accused in a case involving the abduction and rape of a minor under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act. The judgment, delivered by a division bench comprising Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Sachin Singh Rajput, dismissed the appeal filed by the accused, affirming the trial court’s decision.
Case Background
The case, registered as CRA No. 1937 of 2023, revolves around the events of August 27, 2020, when the victim, a 14-year-old girl, went missing from her home in Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh. Her father lodged a complaint the following day, leading to an investigation that revealed the involvement of the accused. The victim was found with Sonwani, who was subsequently charged under Sections 363, 366, and 376 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Sections 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act.
Legal Issues and Court’s Observations
The appeal raised several legal issues, including the validity of the victim’s age determination, the credibility of the prosecution’s evidence, and the alleged false implication due to a land dispute between the families of the accused and the victim.
Age Determination
The court emphasized the importance of the victim’s age in cases under the POCSO Act. The prosecution presented the Dakhil Kharij Register from the Government Primary School, Nagara, which recorded the victim’s date of birth as August 10, 2005. The defense failed to provide any evidence to dispute this, leading the court to conclude that the victim was indeed a minor at the time of the incident.
Credibility of Evidence
The defence argued that the victim’s father had falsely implicated Sonwani due to a land dispute. However, the court found the testimonies of the victim and her family members credible. The medical examination conducted by Dr. Shabana Arafat corroborated the victim’s account, revealing nail scratches and a ruptured hymen, consistent with sexual assault.
False Implication Argument
The defence presented Gopal Singh as a witness to support the claim of false implication. Singh testified about the land dispute and a Panchayat meeting where threats were allegedly made. However, the court noted inconsistencies in his testimony and the lack of any formal complaint regarding the alleged false implication.
Court’s Decision
The High Court upheld the trial court’s conviction of accused under the following sections:
– Section 363 IPC: Kidnapping, with a sentence of 5 years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500.
– Section 366 IPC: Abduction with intent to compel marriage or illicit intercourse, with a sentence of 5 years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500.
– Section 4(2) POCSO Act: Penetrative sexual assault, with a sentence of 20 years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 15,000.
The court concluded that the prosecution had proven its case beyond reasonable doubt, stating, “The appellant has committed a heinous crime of rape against a minor girl, and the same has been duly proved by the prosecution.”
Also Read
Key Observations
Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha, in his judgment, remarked, “The evidence presented by the victim and corroborated by medical reports leaves no room for doubt regarding the appellant’s guilt. The trial court’s judgment is based on a thorough appreciation of the evidence and warrants no interference.”
For Appellant: Mr. Bharat Lal Dembra, Advocate
For Respondent/State: Mr. Kanwaljeet Singh Saini, Panel Lawyer
