Bombay HC Overturns Acquittal, Jails Man for 10 Years in 2012 Minor Rape Case
The Bombay High Court on Monday set aside the acquittal of a 32-year-old labourer, Anil Gaikwad, and sentenced him to 10 years in prison for kidnapping and raping a six-year-old girl in Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar in 2012.
A division bench of Justices Sandipkumar More and Vaishali Patil-Jadhav held that the testimony of a child survivor cannot be discarded simply because she is unable to describe sexual acts in detail. The Aurangabad sessions court had previously acquitted Gaikwad in April 2017, granting him the benefit of the doubt on the grounds that the victim could not clearly describe the assault, despite medical findings supporting the prosecution.
Overturning the trial court's verdict, the High Court bench noted that a child of tender age cannot be expected to explain sexual acts with precision. The judges stated that the inability of a minor victim to describe a sexual act in clear terms cannot be a ground to discard her testimony, especially when she lacks the maturity to understand such acts.
The crime occurred on May 3, 2012, when the victim went missing from her residence and was later found unconscious under a tree. After regaining consciousness at home, the child told her mother that Gaikwad had lured her away on the pretext of visiting a flour mill. He instead took her towards a village dam, stripped her clothes, sat on her, slapped her, and inflicted severe pain around her genitalia.
Medical personnel at a government hospital in Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar subsequently examined the girl, confirming that she had been raped and documenting bleeding and injuries around her genitalia. Police registered a First Information Report against Gaikwad and arrested him following the revelations.
During the trial, the prosecution examined nine witnesses, including the child. Following Gaikwad's acquittal in 2017, the Maharashtra government appealed the judgment before the High Court.
In its ruling, the High Court observed that the survivor's testimony was consistent with her initial police statement, even though her court deposition was recorded four-and-a-half years after the incident. The bench noted that a child's evidence cannot be evaluated using the same parameters applied to adults, pointing out that the victim had named the accused directly and had no reason to falsely implicate him. The judges concluded that her testimony was credible, trustworthy, and fully corroborated by the medical evidence.
