Observing that offences of sexual assault are often committed in isolation, the Aurangabad bench of the Bombay High Court upheld the conviction of a 26-year-old man for raping a minor boy. The HC said that when medical evidence corroborates with the testimony of the victim, there is no need for witnesses.
A bench of Justice Vibha Kankanwadi was dealing with an appeal filed by Mahesh Chavan (name changed), a resident of Hingoli, challenging the judgment of a lower court, which sentenced him to seven years of rigorous imprisonment in 2016.
According to the prosecution case, Chavan raped a minor boy, who lived in his neighborhood. The accused was not seen by anyone in his village, as he had gagged the victim's mouth while he took him to his house.
This, Chavan, used as his defense, arguing that there was no eyewitness to have seen him dragging the boy to his house. But this contention was trashed by Justice Kankanwadi, saying, "Such offences are usually committed in isolation and, therefore, there cannot be an eye witness."
Chavan further argued that he was falsely implicated in the case, as the victim's family and he had disputed over a land and there was animosity between the two families.
"Even if, for the sake of arguments, it is accepted that there is such civil dispute; yet, the gravity does not appear to be so that with the help of a small child, the father would level
such kind of allegations against the accused," Justice Kankanwadi remarked.
"Under such circumstances, the said defence deserves to be discarded in entirety. If there is no such background of false implication, then, though there appears to be some delay,
it cannot be said to be fatal to the prosecution," the judge added.
The bench further took note of the medical evidence which concluded that the boy was subjected to forced intercourse. "The medical evidence is supporting the victim and there is nothing in the cross examination of the victim to discard his evidence or brand it as unbelievable
or untrustworthy. These facts only are sufficient to come to the conclusion that the accused has committed the offence," the bench said.
The court, accordingly, upheld his conviction by the lower court. "Where the reduction of sentence is concerned, no reason has been shown why the sentence should be reduced.
The offence has been committed. That too, on a boy of 9 years old. Therefore, the question of showing leniency does not arise," Justice Kankanwadi ruled.
