Read Time: 04 minutes
The Bench took note of many facets of the victim; victim's age at the time, evidence showing that she was crying continuously, and how after gathering courage the victim had identified the appellant in the Court.
A bench of Justice Sarang V. Kotwal, upheld conviction of the appellant convicted for commission of offence punishable under Section 354 of the IPC read with Section 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (‘POCSO Act’)
In 2013, the appellant assaulted the victim, when she was five years old, by closing her eyes and pinching her private parts. Subsequently, the police arrested the appellant and filed a charge sheet. On examination of the witnesses and the victim, the lower court convicted the appellant.
The appellant then approached the Bombay High Court, arguing that there was a delay of two days in filing an FIR, and no explanation to the same was given to the Court. The Counsel for the appellant, Sushan Mhatre further contended that the appellant was falsely implicated due to certain tensions between him and the victim's father, and the medical reports did not show any kind of injury to the victim.
Yogesh Y. Dabke, APP, argued that the prosecution had proved its case beyond reasonable doubts, and relied on the depositions of the victim, and the victim’s mother.
The High Court while upholding the conviction of the appellant noted, that the victim was not a tutored witness, and the evidence of the victim’s mother corroborated the victim’s version. And was of the opinion that, the victim "appears to be an innocent child. She has not identified any person randomly. Even during the course of trial, she identified the appellant in the Court though she was scared".
The court thus opined that, "The absence of injury mentioned in the medical certificate will not make any difference to her case because the very nature of the offence of sexual assault defined under Section 7 of the POCSO Act mentions that even touching private part with sexual intent is sufficient to attract the provisions of Section 7 read with Section 8 of the POCSO Act". And that 'the ocular evidence of the victim and her mother inspires confidence'.
The court without interfering with the judgment and order, disposed of the case considering all the aspects.
CASE TITLE: Ramchandra Shrimant Bhandare vs. State of Maharashtra
Please Login or Register
