04 April 2025 Criminal Appeals & Suspension of Sentence >> Criminal Law   |   Rape >> Criminal Law  

The Bombay High Court has affirmed the conviction and life imprisonment sentence awarded to a man by the Additional Sessions Judge, Dindoshi, for the aggravated sexual assault of a four-year-old girl. The High Court, in its judgment of Vilas Laxman Chawan Vs State of Maharashtra & Anr., dismissed the appeal filed by the accused, upholding his conviction under Sections 363 (kidnapping), 366A (procuration of minor girl), and 376(2)(f) (aggravated sexual assault) of the Indian Penal Code.

The case stemmed from an incident on June 26, 2012, when the young victim went missing while buying snacks near her family's footpath dwelling in Dahisar, Mumbai. She returned home approximately two hours later with the Appellant, who claimed to have found her crying at a bus stop. The child was found to be bleeding heavily from her private parts.

During the trial, the prosecution presented the testimonies of the victim's parents, the victim herself (who was eight years old at the time of deposition), medical professionals, investigating officers, and forensic experts. The defense primarily focused on alleged inconsistencies in the parents' initial statements and questioned the chain of custody of the DNA samples.

The High Court, in its analysis, underscored the settled legal principle that the sole testimony of a victim in sexual offence cases can be sufficient for conviction, provided it is credible and inspires confidence. Citing Supreme Court precedents, the bench emphasized that corroboration is not mandatory for a "sterling witness," whose account is truthful and consistent.

The Court found the testimony of the victim to be graphic and detailed, even considering her young age at the time of the incident and deposition. Her consistent narration of being taken by the Appellant, the act of sexual assault near the railway tracks, and the subsequent pain, was deemed reliable. The Court also noted the natural hesitation a young child might have in confiding in her father immediately after such a traumatic experience, finding the mother's explanation for the delay in informing her husband to be plausible.

Addressing the defense's concerns about the DNA evidence, the High Court scrutinized the testimonies of the police personnel involved in collecting and transporting the samples. The Court found no significant discrepancies or evidence of tampering. The forensic analysis report, which matched the Appellant's DNA with the swabs taken from the victim, was considered crucial evidence corroborating the victim's account. The Court highlighted the absence of any suggestion of seal tampering during the cross-examination of the relevant witnesses.

The Court also considered the recovery of the victim's clothes and the Appellant's wallet from near the railway tracks, based on the Appellant's disclosure to the police. While one of the panch witnesses turned hostile regarding the seizure of clothes, another corroborated the discovery.

The medical evidence provided by the doctor who examined the victim immediately after the incident clearly indicated signs of sexual assault. This testimony further supported the prosecution's case.

The High Court noted the Appellant's failure to provide any plausible explanation for his encounter with the victim at the bus stop or the alleged stranger he claimed to have assaulted. The Court emphasized the importance of the accused's statement under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. in providing an opportunity to explain incriminating circumstances, which the Appellant failed to utilize effectively.

Based on the consistent and credible testimony of the victim, the corroborative medical and DNA evidence, and the lack of a satisfactory defense, the Bombay High Court concluded that the prosecution had established the Appellant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the trial court's conviction and sentence were upheld. The Court acknowledged the assistance provided by the learned counsel for the Appellant and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor.

Section 313., Code of Criminal Procedure - 1973  

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973  

Section 363., Indian Penal Code - 1860  

Section 366A., Indian Penal Code - 1860  

Section 376., Indian Penal Code - 1860  

Indian Penal Code, 1860