Victim’s silence before doctors no ground for acquittal: Cal HC in child rape case

Kolkata: The Calcutta High Court has upheld the life sentence of a man convicted of raping a nine-year-old, holding that a traumatised child’s failure to name the accused before doctors does not weaken the prosecution case if she later clearly identifies him.

A Division Bench of Justice Rajasekhar Mantha and Justice Md. Shabbar Rashidi dismissed the appeal against a trial court judgment that had convicted the accused under Section 376(2)(i) of the IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act. The trial court had sentenced him to imprisonment for the remainder of his

natural life and imposed a fine of Rs 1 lakh, with a further three years’ rigorous imprisonment in default.

The case arose from an incident in August 2016 in Nadia district when the girl went missing while playing near her home and was later found unconscious in a ditch near a railway gate with bleeding injuries. After regaining consciousness, she disclosed the name of the accused. She was treated at Aranghata hospital and later shifted to Ranaghat, Kalyani and finally NRS Medical College and Hospital in Kolkata.

The defence argued before the High Court that the victim had not named the accused during medical examinations and pointed to alleged contradictions in witness testimonies. It was also contended that the sentence was excessive and harsh.

Rejecting the submissions, the Bench observed that the victim was only nine years old and would have been deeply traumatised. There was no evidence that medical officers had asked her to identify her assailant. The court noted that in her deposition before the trial court and in her statement recorded before a magistrate, she had clearly named the accused.

Reiterating settled law, the court held that conviction under rape laws and the POCSO Act can rest on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix if it inspires confidence. In this case, her evidence was supported by medical records and corroborated by family members and police witnesses.

Observing that minor lapses in investigation cannot defeat a well-founded prosecution case, the Bench found no reason to interfere with the conviction or sentence and dismissed the appeal.