Read Time: 07 minutes

Synopsis

A division bench of the Bombay High Court at Aurangabad comprising Justice Vibha Kankanwadi and Justice YG Khabragade has recently upheld the conviction of a 38-year-old man in a rape case while observing that a six-year-old cannot be expected to know the full name of the person who raped her.

“We would say that it cannot be expected from a girl of six years that she would tell the full name of the other person, who is residing in the nearby area. She would know that person with the first or last name/surname or may identify that person by the name of the person's child/children i.e. father of a particular boy/girl. Giving full name of the accused by the mother from the said nickname therefore cannot be viewed from an angle of implication of the accused” the court observed.

The high court was hearing an appeal filed against the conviction order passed by a Special Judge in a minor's rape case.

As per the prosecution, the victim girl had come crying inside the house and holding her shorts in her hand while blood dripped from her private area and down her thighs. She had complained of pain in her private part to her mother. When the mother asked her as to what had happened, she had disclosed to her that while playing in their house's courtyard, a person had gagged her, carried her to the bank of a nearby river, and threatened her.

The girl had told that the man had then laid her down on the grass, removed her clothes, and sexually assaulted her. The girl had also mentioned that there was severe pain, and that she had started crying. Subsequently, the person had assaulted her again and then fled, the victim had stated. 

After the girl's disclosure, her mother had informed her father-in-law, and they had taken her to the spot where the incident occurred. They had observed that the grass at the location was trodden, and then the informant had gone to the police station and lodged a report.

After the trial, the convict was sentenced to six years of rigorous imprisonment by the Special Judge.

The appeal was filed by the convict on the ground that the girl had informed the name of the accused as “Satya” after which the mother identified the man with his full name i.e., Satish Nandre.

The court said that just because the mother had identified Naresh, it did not mean that she had tried to implicate him.

“Important point to be noted is that in the cross-examination, it is absolutely not suggested to her as to what was the reason for alleged implication of the accused. Even in his statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal procedure, the accused is not explaining as to what was the probable reason of his implication” the court noted.

The high court also refused to show leniency with respect to the quantum of the sentence and said,

“The accused has committed one of the heinous crimes. The life of a small child aged 6 has been ruined. The rape on a victim leaves a scar throughout the life and, therefore, there is no question of showing leniency to such accused person”.

Case Title: Satish Nandre vs State of Maharashtra & XYZ