Read Time: 08 minutes

Synopsis

The Delhi High Court recently dismissed an appeal filed by a man against his conviction and sentence under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act for raping a 4-year-old minor.

The court while dealing with one Ranjeet Kumar Yadav’s appeal seeking direction to set aside a judgment passed by the trial court, whereby he was convicted under Sections 342, 363, and 376 of IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act, said,

“The trial court has correctly observed that injury on the private parts in cases of sexual offences depends on various factors such as depth of insertion, among others. It is not necessary that in every case there would be an injury caused. Therefore, mere absence of injuries cannot be a ground to hold that penetrative sexual assault did not take place”.

While dismissing the appeal, the bench of Justice Amit Bansal upheld the 12 years sentence awarded to the convict in 2021 for raping a minor. He was also awarded three years of rigorous imprisonment for kidnapping the minor.

“I find no infirmity in the impugned judgment convicting the appellant for the offences under Sections 342/363/376 of the IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act. In view of the above, there is no merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed”, the court ordered.

It also said that the trial court had correctly observed that the victim was very young at the time of the incident and minor contradictions could not be a ground to disbelieve her testimony.

“In my considered view, the statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 of the CrPC cannot be read in isolation and has to be considered in totality of the given facts and circumstances and due weightage has to be given to the age of the victim, which was four and a half years at the time of the incident”, Justice Bansal observed.

It was the prosecution’s case that the victim, a girl of four and a half years was playing in the street outside her house on June 11, 2017. When the victim’s mother could not find the victim, she sent her husband (the father of the victim) to look for her. The father of the victim reached the house of the appellant (Yadav), who was their neighbour and knocked at the door which was locked from inside. He also called for the victim but there was no response.

The victim’s father, after some time, again went to the house of the appellant and called for the victim and received her response from inside the door. After a couple of minutes, the appellant dressed in his underwear opened the door and the victim was found present inside the room.

On bringing back the victim to their house, she told her mother about the incident. She informed that the appellant took her to his house, gave her ‘Mango Frooti’, and after removing her underwear, inserted his finger inside her private parts.

After hearing about the incident, the victim’s parents informed the police and accordingly, on the statement of the mother, an FIR was registered against the appellant under Section 376 of IPC and Section 4/6 of the POCSO Act. The statement of the victim under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) was also recorded and the accused was sent for his medical examination.

“It also has to be borne in mind that under Section 29 of the POCSO Act, there is a statutory presumption raised against the accused in respect of offences under Sections 3, 5, 7 and 9 of the POCSO Act. In the present case, the accused has failed to successfully rebut the aforesaid presumption by leading evidence or discrediting the evidence of the prosecution”, the court said in its order dated August 14.

The single-judge bench further said that the appellant had not been able to shake the version of the prosecution and the prosecution had successfully proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the court while upholding the trial court order, dismissed the present appeal.

Case Title: Ranjeet Kumar Yadav v. State of NCT of Delhi