Read Time: 07 minutes

Synopsis

The Chhattisgarh High Court, in a recent ruling, has rejected the plea of insanity claimed by a an accused of raping a 6 year old girl. The court confirmed the conviction of the accused concluding that he was of sound mind and capable of understanding his actions at the time of commission of the offence.

The court, presided over by Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Sachin Singh Rajput, observed that “Accused cannot be exempted on the ground of mere insanity in special offences under the POCSO Act, 2012. The doctrine to prove exceptions beyond reasonable doubt must sustain.”

The court made the observation on an appeal filed by the accused against the conviction by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Special Court (POCSO), Rajnandgaon. He was found guilty under Section 376AB of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 5(m) read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act, resulting in a sentence of life imprisonment until natural death, a fine of Rs. 20,000, and an additional year of rigorous imprisonment in default of payment.

On November 5, 2020, the appellant allegedly raped a six-year-old girl at his home.The victim stated that the accused raped her. She described the incident in detail, mentioning that the accused took her to his house under the pretext of giving her guava and then committed the act. The incident was witnessed by the victim's aunt and other children, who reported it to the victim's parents and the police, leading to the appellant's arrest. The sexual assault was further confirmed by medical examination.

The court, considering the key question, whether the accused/appellant was suffering from unsoundness of mind on the date of commission of offence?, stated that “The appellant has the capacity to understand the seriousness of the charge imposed on him and his criminal responsibilities and also has a feeling of guilt.”

The court, relying on the testimonies from the psychiatrist and the Jail Superintendent, observed that “daily activities of the accused are natural and normal in which there is no abnormality,” noting that the accused was capable of taking care of himself and could “he takes bath, goes to the toilet, wears his own clothes, eats his own food and keeps himself clean.”

The accused, represented by Advocate Pushpendra Kumar Patel, alleged that he was being falsely implicated and that the victim was not a minor. The court, however, observed that the prosecution had successfully proved beyond reasonable doubt that the victim was a minor and that the accused had committed the crime. The court noted that “the trial Court has rightly held that the date of birth of the victim is 29.05.2014 and on the date of incident i.e. on 05.11.2020, she was minor and her age was 06 years 05 months and 06 days.”

The court stated “the prosecution has been successful in proving its case beyond reasonable doubt and the learned trial Court has not committed any legal or factual error in arriving at the finding with regard to the guilt of the appellant/convict,” upholding the trial court’s conviction and sentence, rejecting the appellant’s plea of insanity.

Conclusively, the court held that “the appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed.”

 

Cause Title: XYZ v State of Chhattisgarh [CRA No. 375 of 2024]