Allegedly, the accused and the minor were “in a relationship” and often met. The family discovered the pregnancy in June 2016 when the girl took ill and was hospitalised.
Special Prosecutor Geeta Sharma stated that even though the prosecution had only interrogated the survivor and the investigating officer, the quality of evidence was what was important and not the number.
She claimed that the victim was pregnant and hospitalised at the time relevant time when the complaint was filed. She informed the court that the survivor’s pregnancy had been medically terminated, and the DNA of the fetus indicated that the accused was the biological father.
She contended that because the defence accepted the victim and accused’s love connection, penetrative sexual assault was not contested.
Advocate Sudarshan Gamare defending the accused contended that while there was a romantic connection between the survivor and the accused, it was totally voluntary.
He stated that the accused was willing to marry the minor girl, but the her family was reluctant. Therefore, he contended that the accused committed no crime and deserved to be acquitted.
Furthermore, he stated that during her cross-examination, the survivor revealed to the police that she provided a false statement to protect the accused and particularly admitted that the sexual encounters were with her approval.
He called the court’s attention to the fact that the victim testified that the complaint was submitted on her mother’s and grandmother’s instance, not her own.
Since the DNA report corroborated that there was penetrative sexual assault on the survivor at the hands of accused, the court held that the prosecution had proved that he had committed the offences alleged against him.
It placed the onus on the accused to rebut the presumption under Sections 29 and 30 of the POCSO Act.
Apart from denial, the accused was unable to present any proof or credible explanation to counter the inference. Even in his recorded testimony under section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code, he indicated that the survivor informed him that she was a major.
He claimed to be unaware of her age.
He alleged that because he was of a lower caste, the survivor’s family was opposed to their marriage and that a bogus case was launched against him. The court found his rebuttal to be inadequate to absolve him of accountability.
“As the presumption remain un-rebutted, inference required to be drawn that accused has committed aggravated penetrative sexual assault upon victim, a minor aged 15 years 8 months on more than one occasion,” it concluded.
The Court, therefore, convicted him of the offences of rape under the Indian Penal Code and aggravated penetrative sexual assault under the POCSO Act, respectively.
He was sentenced to ten years rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of ₹5,000 out of which ₹3,000 was directed to be paid to the minor girl as compensation.
[Read Judgment]
Source: Barandbench
