 is not mandatory but can be conducted to help the prosecution prove its case.The court upheld the conviction of a man for committing aggravated penetrative sexual assault on his minor daughter. The Bench, consisting of Justice Manish Choudhury and Justice Robin Phukan, emphasized that sentencing was mandatory due to the "gruesome and abhorrent" nature of the offence, indicating the accused's moral depravity.){kind=link}
The Gauhati High Court ruled that the medical examination of a rape accused under Section 53A of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) is not mandatory but can be conducted to help the prosecution prove its case.
The court upheld the conviction of a man for committing aggravated penetrative sexual assault on his minor daughter. The Bench, consisting of Justice Manish Choudhury and Justice Robin Phukan, emphasized that sentencing was mandatory due to the “gruesome and abhorrent” nature of the offence, indicating the accused’s moral depravity.
Examination to Facilitate Prosecution
“It is discernible that examination of a person accused of committing an offence of rape or an attempt to commit rape is not mandatory,” the court noted. Such examination is appropriate if there are reasonable grounds to believe it will provide evidence of the offence, aiding the prosecution.
The court dismissed the appeal against the trial court’s conviction under Section 6 of the POCSO Act for raping a 9-year-old girl. An FIR had been registered against the accused under Section 376AB of the IPC and Section 4 of the POCSO Act.
Argument on Mandatory Procedure and Court’s Clarification
The accused argued that the investigation failed to follow the mandatory procedure under Section 53A of the CrPC, which would have exposed the prosecution’s falsehoods. The court clarified that the lack of a medical examination was a flaw in the investigation but did not warrant acquitting the accused.
Reliability of Child Witness
The court stated that a competent and reliable child witness’s testimony could form the basis of conviction. Even without an oath, a child witness’s evidence is valid under Section 118 of the Evidence Act, provided the child can understand the questions and give rational answers.
Addressing the accused’s argument about the delay in filing the FIR, the court noted that while a delay in lodging the report is not inherently detrimental to the prosecution’s case, it must be evaluated based on the facts and circumstances of each case.
The court upheld the trial court’s decision, confirming the accused’s guilt in the penetrative sexual assault on the minor, supported by the victim’s medical examination. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.
Case Details:
- Case Title: Santosh Tanti v. The State of Assam & Anr.