Mumbai: The Nagpur bench of the Bombay High Court has upheld the conviction of a 17-year-old boy, who was tried as an adult, for raping his minor friend, noting that there is a built-in assurance that the charge is genuine, rather than fabricated. The court noted that usually neither the girl nor her family would indulge their daughter's name even for settling scores.
The HC was hearing an appeal filed by the boy, who was 17 years and nine months at the time of the offence, challenging his conditions by the session court. On June 14, 2023, the sessions court at Nagpur convicted him and sentenced him to ten years in prison. The sessions court said that it was satisfied that the boy had the mental and physical capacity to commit the crime and even understand the consequences.
According to the prosecution, on May 20, 2016, the accused called the girl to his house on pretext of studying. However, when she went with a friend, the accused did not allow her friend to enter and raped her. To prevent her screams from reaching her friend, who waited outside in the road, the accused raised the television’s volume.
After the incident, the girl came out frightened and narrated her ordeal. Her friend took her home and they went to the police station, along with her parents, to lodged a complaint. The accused claimed that he was falsely implicated in the case.
The court noted that a girl, in ordinary circumstances, would not make such allegations even for the “sake of settling score”. “Reporting of such crime invites stigmatic consequences for the victim as well as for the family. The pride, prestige and reputation of the victim and the family is put to stake. Bringing such an incident in public can cause irreparable damage to the reputation of the victim and her family,” Justice Sanap observed.
The judge said that in such cases, the victim’s relatives are not keen to bring the culprits to books. “And when the crime is brought to light, there is a built-in assurance that the charge is genuine rather than fabricated,” the judge added.
The court said that the victim’s testimony was “cogent, concrete and reliable”. It added: “It is to be noted that the victim cannot be equated with an accomplice. I am of the view that the evidence of the victim is of sterling quality. I do not see any reason to doubt her evidence.”
