Special POCSO Court In Odisha Sentences Uncle To Life Imprisonment For Rape Of 15-Month-Old Niece

A Special Court under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (the 'POCSO Act') in Odisha's Sambalpur district has sentenced a man to life imprisonment for committing rape on his 15-month-old niece.

Taking into consideration the age of the victim, the Additional District Judge-cum-Special Judge (POCSO), Sambalpur Mr. Abhilash Senapati observed –

“The apathy in these type of offences and by the perpetrator is that the person who is in a position of confidence due to his relationship and taking advantage of the same has ravished the victim.”

Brief Background

The accused was charged under Sections 376(2)(i)/450 of the IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act for committing house trespass in order to commit rape and aggravated penetrative sexual assault on the victim, who was about 15-month-old at the time of incident.

The prosecution alleged that the accused entered into house of the informant while she was busy in the thrashing floor harvesting her crops. Taking advantage of the situation, he committed sexual intercourse with the daughter of the informant. Upon her return to the house, the informant saw blood oozing out of the vagina and nose of the victim. Subsequently, she was informed by her neighbour that while she was absent, the accused had gone inside her house and left the spot hurriedly after some time.

The informant lodged an FIR against the accused and upon completion of investigation, the police submitted charge-sheet against him under the aforesaid charges.

Court's Observations

The Court, at the outset, perused the birth certificate of the child for the purpose of determining her age which reflected that she was only 14 months and 20 days old at the time of occurrence.

Thereafter, it went on to examine the medical examination report which revealed that there was an abrasion with bleeding over the posterior wall of the vagina and another abrasion over inner side upper lip.

Though suggestions were given to the doctor that such injuries could have been caused due to the victim coming in contact with any hard and blunt object or by self-infliction, but the Court out-rightly rejected such suggestions and termed them as 'vague'.

The Court noted that the only eye-witness to the incident is the victim herself but she cannot be regarded as a competent witness to depose in this respect as she was merely of 15 months when the occurrence took place.

Apart from the victim, two vital witnesses were her mother/the informant and the neighbour. The version of the mother of the victim remained consistent in FIR, her statement under Section 164 of the CrPC and during her examination in the Court.

She clearly stated that the accused went to her house when she was in the thrashing floor. Further, her evidence was corroborated by the neighbour who also deposed that the accused entered inside the house of the informant and left the spot hurriedly after some time.

The Court further took into consideration the fact that the accused failed to discharge the reverse burden laid upon him under Sections 29 and 30 of the POCSO Act. There was also no explanation from the side of the defence as to why the accused entered into the house of the informant.

“This clearly suggests that the accused had knowledge about the time which would be taken by the informant to return back and accordingly the act was committed by him. Furthermore, the accused knew very well that the informant was in the thrashing floor and the victim was alone and thereafter went to the spot, which clearly proves his motive alongwith malafide intention,” the Court observed.

The defence took the plea that no cry or shout was raised by the victim at the time of the occurrence which is suggestive of the fact that the story was concocted against the accused. However, the Court refuted the said argument and observed:

“The learned defence counsel it seems, has mistaken the age of the victim. The victim's age at the time of the occurrence was about one and half years, a victim of such a tender age being brutally ravished, obviously cannot shout as loudly as could be heard by the nearby persons.”

Accordingly, the Court found the accused guilty of the offences under Sections 376(2)(i)/450 of the IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act and sentenced him to imprisonment for life under Section 6 of the POCSO Act and did not sentence him separately under Section 450 of the IPC in view of Section 42 of the POCSO Act.

“Considering the above submissions, the age of the victim being a minor of 1 and ½ years at the time of occurrence and all other factors into account, this Court feels inclined to pass the maximum sentence upon the accused prescribed for the offence at the time of the occurrence,” it concluded.

Case Title: X v. Kishori Dhanwar

Date of Judgment: January 09, 2024

Click Here To Read/Download Order