DATE: 11/07/2025
COURT: High Court of Bombay
BENCH: Justice Nitin B. Suryawanshi and
Justice Sandipkumar C. More
FACTS:
The case concerns the conviction of Shaikh
Fakruddin Shaikh Maulna Saab, a resident of Degloor, District Nanded, who was
found guilty by the Additional Sessions Judge, Biloli, in Sessions Case No. 35
of 1999 for committing rape on a minor girl under Section 376(2)(f) of the
Indian Penal Code. On 13 February 1999, the four-year-old victim had gone to
play at the house of her friend Reshma, who was the daughter of the accused.
According to the victim’s mother, Yusufabegum, the child returned home around 4:00
p.m. crying and reported that the accused had given her a sweet named
‘Banaras’, made her lie on a cot, sat on her abdomen, and inserted his private
part into her urinary area. On examining her, the mother noticed swelling and
sticky stains on the child’s undergarments. The mother informed several
neighbours about the incident and, following advice from a community member,
lodged a police complaint the next morning at Degloor Police Station.
As per the victim, he inserted his private
part in her place of urine. It was further alleged that when the victim’s
mother saw the private part of the victim, she found that it was swollen and
there were sticky stains on her knicker. The victim was allegedly crying whole
night due to pains. Next day, the Complainant lodged the report of the incident
against the accused in the police station. The Trial Court convicted him under
Section 376(2)(f) of the IPC and sentenced him to suffer life imprisonment along
with a fine of Rs. 1,000/-. Challenging his conviction, the accused was before
the High Court.
ISSUES:
The key issues presented in this case were
whether the evidence on record was sufficient to sustain the conviction of the
appellant under Section 376(2)(f) IPC for committing sexual assault on a minor
child, and whether, in the absence of independent witnesses or forensic
evidence such as semen or blood stains, the offence could be diluted to either
an attempt to commit rape or to an offence under Section 354 IPC (outraging the
modesty of a woman). The defence argued that the lack of specific details from
the victim and absence of physical evidence cast doubt on the prosecution’s
case.
JUDGEMENT WITH REASONING:
The Bombay High Court upheld the trial
court’s conviction of the appellant under Section 376(2)(f) IPC and dismissed
the appeal. The Court found no merit in the arguments raised by the appellant's
counsel and concluded that the trial court had properly appreciated the
evidence on record. The appellant was directed to surrender before the
concerned police station within three months to serve the sentence of life
imprisonment awarded to him.
The Court carefully evaluated the arguments
presented by the appellant, particularly those relying on precedents where the
lack of physical evidence or inability of the victim to describe the act had led
to a reduction in charges. It rejected the comparison to State of Punjab v.
State of Uttar Pradesh and Biren Mukhi v. State of Bihar, stating that in the
present case, the victim was four years old and capable of describing the
incident in a clear and consistent manner. Furthermore, the medical evidence
supported the occurrence of sexual assault, and minor discrepancies in her
statement were not material enough to affect the core of the prosecution’s
case. The Court emphasized that in such offences, the testimony of the victim
alone, if credible and trustworthy, is sufficient to base a conviction, even in
the absence of independent corroboration or forensic findings.
The Court also addressed the appellant’s
reliance on the Chemical Analyzer’s report showing no blood or semen on the
victim or her clothes. It referred to the Supreme Court’s ruling in Parayanamma
v. State of Karnataka, which clarified that the absence of spermatozoa does not
discredit the prosecutrix's version, as ejaculation is not a necessary element
of the offence, and many factors—such as improper sample collection or quality
of semen, can affect such results. The Court concluded that the medical
findings, consistent testimony of the child and her mother, and the nature of
the offence involving a child as young as the accused's own daughter, justified
a serious view and confirmed the life sentence imposed.
ANALYSIS:
This case highlights the judiciary’s firm
stance on crimes involving sexual assault against minors, particularly under
Section 376(2)(f) IPC, which deals with aggravated forms of rape. The
conviction of the appellant, despite the absence of forensic evidence such as
semen or blood stains, underscores the legal principle that the credible and
consistent testimony of a child victim, corroborated by surrounding
circumstances and medical findings, can be sufficient to uphold a conviction.
The victim, though only four years old, provided a coherent narrative, and her
statement was further supported by her mother’s observations and the medical
report indicating signs of trauma. The Court rightly refused to dilute the
offence to mere outraging of modesty or an attempt to rape, noting that the
specifics of the incident and the victim's ability to describe the act left no
room for such leniency.
The High Court’s judgment also sets an
important precedent in reaffirming that technical lapses in forensic reporting such
as the absence of semen—cannot be used as a ground to discredit a victim’s
testimony in sexual offence cases. Citing Parayanamma v. State of Karnataka,
the Court clarified that ejaculation is not a necessary component to constitute
rape, and several variables may affect forensic outcomes. The Court's approach
reinforces the importance of a victim-centric lens in sexual offence cases and
signals that the judiciary will not tolerate attempts to undermine justice for
minor victims through overly technical or interpretive defences. This case,
therefore, serves as a strong judicial response to crimes against children and
reflects a commitment to upholding the dignity and safety of the most
vulnerable.
info@adhwaitha.com