In a significant development, the Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench, has dismissed Criminal Appeal No. 925 of 2019 and Criminal Appeal No. 844 of 2019, upholding the judgment and order of conviction by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhokar. The appeals were filed by Ananda s/o Mahadu Sawant (Accused No. 1) and Kunal @ Khandu s/o Pandurang Gaikwad (Accused No. 2), challenging their conviction for offenses under Sections 376(2)(i), 376-D, 452, 506 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code [IPC], and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 [POCSO Act]. The cases involved a brutal incident of rape, and the appellants contested the judgment on various grounds.
The case originated from a complaint filed by the victim (referred to as PW1) at Umri Police Station, alleging that she and her mother were sexually assaulted in their home during the night. The incident, which occurred on November 26, 2018, led to the registration of a criminal case against three accused, including Ananda and Kunal. The trial court, after due proceedings, convicted the appellants based on the prosecution’s evidence.
The High Court, in its judgment delivered on January 17, 2024, addressed several crucial aspects raised by the defense during the appeal. The primary contentions included challenging the victim’s age, inconsistencies in witness testimonies, and the absence of injuries. Notably, the defense argued that the prosecution failed to establish the victim’s minority as per the definition under the POCSO Act.
The defense, represented by Mr. A. M. Gaikwad and Ms. Rekha Choudhari, contended that the prosecution relied on a mere school extract for establishing the victim’s age, which lacked evidentiary value. The Headmaster (PW8) testified that the victim’s date of birth was recorded in the school register based on the Transfer Certificate of her earlier school. However, the birth certificate issued by the Gram Panchayat, a crucial document according to legal standards, was not produced during the trial. The defense argued that this omission weakened the prosecution’s case regarding the victim’s age.
The court critically analyzed the evidence provided by the Headmaster, emphasizing the absence of the birth certificate. While the original admission register mentioned the victim’s date of birth as January 8, 2014, the court observed the failure of the Investigating Officer to secure the birth certificate from the Gram Panchayat. Despite this lapse, the court inferred that the date of birth was likely noted based on the Gram Panchayat certificate, and the defense’s argument on the lack of evidence regarding the victim’s age was not accepted.
The court examined the testimonies of the victim (PW1) and her mother (PW3). Both witnesses provided consistent accounts of the traumatic incident, detailing the forced entry by three individuals, threats, and sexual assaults. The court dismissed the defense’s attempts to create doubt by highlighting minor inconsistencies and omissions in their statements during cross-examination.
The defense also questioned the absence of injuries on the victim’s body, emphasizing that it contradicted the narrative of a violent sexual assault. However, the court referred to established legal precedents, stating that the absence of injuries is not determinative in cases of rape, especially when the victim is a minor. The court relied on medical expert testimony (PW4), which affirmed that the findings were consistent with sexual intercourse.
After a comprehensive analysis of the arguments presented, the Bombay High Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court, dismissing the appeals and upholding the convictions of Ananda and Kunal. The court emphasized the credibility of the victim and her mother, the overall consistency in their statements, and the significance of medical evidence in establishing the guilt of the accused. The decision sets a precedent for the stringent application of the law in cases involving sexual offenses, particularly those against minors.
CASE NAME- “Ananda s/o Mahadu Sawant and Kunal @ Khandu s/o Pandurang Gaikwad v. The State of Maharashtra.”
Arushi Mengi,a 2nd year student at The Law School, University of Jammu, an intern under Legal Vidhiya.
Disclaimer: The materials provided herein are intended solely for informational purposes. Accessing or using the site or the materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The information presented on this site is not to be construed as legal or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon for such purposes or used as a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney in your state. Additionally, the viewpoint presented by the author is of a personal nature.
