Investigative Perfunctoriness Not Grounds For Case Dismissal, Specially In View Of Clear And Cogent Evidence Of Victim Herself: Patna High Court Upholds Verdict in Conviction of Father for Rape of Minor Daughter

The Division Bench comprising of Justice Ashutosh Kumar and Justice Alok Kumar Pandey observed, “We further find that there was no purpose of his seizing the clothes of the appellant, when it was no sent for forensic examination ever. Perhaps, the Investigator did not consider any one of these to be important while investigating such a serious charge. But as is well settled, merely because an investigation is perfunctory, that is no ground to completely discard the prosecution case, specially in view of the clear and cogent evidence of the victim herself.”

Based on the factual context of the case, the victim asserted that her father (the appellant) had subjected her to molestation and rape. Escaping from his control, she sought refuge at a police station to report the incidents. The victim's younger brother supported her claims, stating that he had witnessed the appellant attempting to undress and assault the victim. Additionally, it was alleged that the appellant's heinous actions had driven the victim's mother to commit suicide a few months prior.

In response to these allegations, a case was filed under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. Following the examination of seven prosecution witnesses, including the victim, investigating officer, and doctor, the Trial Court found the appellant guilty and imposed a sentence.

Upon a meticulous examination of the testimonies presented by both the prosecution and defense witnesses, the court noted that the victim though had made a very short statement at the trial but did not prevaricated at any point of time.

The court highlighted, “After the death of her mother, perhaps on 04.07.2013 there was an attempt by the appellant to sexually assault her. She sought for help and came out to the room. That was the nemesis of the appellant. She never complained about her father before, except to her mother, who did not take any positive action against him.”

“But this attempt of the appellant in the morning of 04.07.2013 was the last straw in the camel’s back when the victim decided to report the matter to the police. She took the help of her grandmother, the aunt and her cousin who all along with the victim went to the police station to report the matter,” the Court added.

Addressing the defense's attempt to cast doubt on the credibility of the victim and her late mother, the court asserted that the brother's testimony remained unshaken, portraying him as neither overly mature nor mentally incapacitated during his deposition before the Trial Court.

Additionally, the court clarified that the grandmother's vigilance over her granddaughter's safety at the appellant's residence did not imply any ulterior motive related to property. The court dismissed insinuations about the appellant's involvement with other women, stating that there was no evidence supporting such claims.

“There is nothing on record from either side which would indicate that the appellant was seeing any other woman after the death of his wife. There is no reference of any extended family of the appellant in whom he would have been more interested than his own children,” the Court added.

The court took note of the absence of physical injuries or signs of habitual sexual intercourse during the medical examination of the victim. It emphasized that the lack of forensic examination of the appellant's clothes did not diminish the credibility of the victim's account. The court reasoned that the absence of spermatozoa or foreign bodies in the vaginal smear could be explained by the victim's timely escape from the appellant's clutches.

The Court said, “We further find that there was no purpose of his seizing the clothes of the appellant, when it was no sent for forensic examination ever. Perhaps, the Investigator did not consider any one of these to be important while investigating such a serious charge.”

“But as is well settled, merely because an investigation is perfunctory, that is no ground to completely discard the prosecution case, specially in view of the clear and cogent evidence of the victim herself,” the Court added while upholding the verdict rendered by the Trial Court in convicting and sentencing the appellant.

Counsel/s For the Appellant/s : Mr. Ajit Ranjan Kumar, Advocate.

Counsel/s For the Respondent/s : Mr. Dilip Kumar Sinha, APP.

LL Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Pat) 137

Case Title: Sanjeev Kumar vs. The State Of Bihar

Case No.: Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 726 of 2018

Click Here To Read / Download Judgement