A teenager's four-year-long fight for justice culminated in success when a special Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) court in Ghaziabad sentenced a man to 20 years of rigorous imprisonment for sexually assaulting her. The court also imposed a fine of Rs 1.05 lakh on the convict.
Court's Verdict
Judge Neeraj Gautam observed that the survivor was under 16 years of age at the time of the incident. The court stated, "Therefore, the charges against the accused under Section 323 (voluntarily causing hurt) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 376(3) (raping a woman under the age of 16) of the IPC, as well as Section 4(2) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, are proven beyond reasonable doubt."
Out of the total fine amount, Rs 1 lakh is to be given to the minor to cover her treatment and rehabilitation expenses, the court directed.
Background of the Case
The survivor filed a First Information Report (FIR) with the Nandgram police station on June 28, 2022, alleging that the accused raped her a day earlier. She explained the one-day delay in filing the complaint, which could have jeopardized her case, by stating that her father was not at home when she returned, and she had to gather courage to speak to her aunt before filing the complaint. Her mother had died years ago.
Police registered a case under Sections 323 and 376 of the IPC and, after collecting documents and evidence, added Section 3/4 of the POCSO Act. The accused denied the charges and opted for a trial.
Incident Details
The survivor recounted that on the day of the incident, while on her way to a coaching class, a group of four boys, two of whom were minors, stopped her. They dragged her to a nearby kuccha house, where the accused raped her while the other three stood guard.
However, the doctor who conducted her medical examination stated that there were no injury marks suggesting rape. Despite this, the prosecution cited the judgments in Vijay Chini vs State of Madhya Pradesh (2011) and Ganeshan vs State of Tamil Nadu (2020), arguing that confirmation by medical report is not mandatory for establishing aggravated penetrative sexual assault.
Court's Reasoning
The court heard both sides and concluded that in the present case, the survivor's evidence is reliable and reasonable. Her statement recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) and the statement of the investigating officer established that the accused committed rape.
"There is uniformity in the entire evidence of the survivor and there is no substantial contradiction. Thus, it becomes clear that the survivor's evidence is natural and reasonable where she can be considered a sterling witness," the judge ruled, pronouncing the accused guilty.
