Victim’s trauma sufficient to accept deposition: HC

The HC refused to entertain an appeal filed by the accused against his conviction and also refused to reduce the sentence

Mumbai: The Bombay high court in a recent judgement observed that the statement of a minor – who was a victim of rape – could not be doubted as she had suffered trauma at the time of the incident and hence could not make a mistake while identifying the accused.

The single judge bench of justice Sarang Kotwal was hearing an appeal of Nitin Nanaware against his conviction and sentence by a sessions court in 2019 for the offences under sections 376 (2)(f) (raping a woman below the age of 12 years), 366A (inducing a minor to accompany him) and 363 (kidnapping) under the Indian Penal Code. (Getty Images)

Considering this view, the HC refused to entertain the appeal filed by the accused against his conviction and also refused to reduce the sentence.

The single judge bench of justice Sarang Kotwal was hearing an appeal of Nitin Nanaware against his conviction and sentence by a sessions court in 2019 for the offences under sections 376 (2)(f) (raping a woman below the age of 12 years), 366A (inducing a minor to accompany him) and 363 (kidnapping) under the Indian Penal Code. The accused through advocate Ashish Vernekar had argued that he was falsely implicated and as he had been imprisoned for around ten years, the sentence of 12 years should be reduced.

In 2012, the incident occurred in the Bibewadi area of Pune when the victim who was 9 years old then went to the market. As per the complaint, while returning home, the culprit who was waiting on a motorcycle stopped her and asked for directions. After the culprit allegedly spoke to the victim’s mother over the phone, she agreed to accompany him to show him the spot and sat on the motorcycle.

She was taken to an under-construction building where the culprit raped her multiple times and threatened her with a knife and then left her near her house, states the complaint.

Based on her description an image was drawn and Nanaware was arrested. The victim identified him in an identification parade in Yerwada jail and later in the court as well, based on which he was convicted for 12 years.

Vernekar had argued that his client was falsely implicated and there were lapses in the investigation which the sessions court had failed to note. The bench was told that as he had already served a sizable portion of his sentence he should be released.

However, advocate Animesh Jadhav for the victim and additional public prosecutor S M Tidke for the state opposed the appeal. The bench was told that the complaint was registered soon after the incident and the medical report showed that the victim was raped. Spot evidence and chemical analysis report also implicated the culprit. The advocates stressed the fact that the victim had no reason to falsely implicate the culprit as he was a stranger and not known to the family or the victim. Hence, leniency should not be shown.

After hearing the submissions, the bench while rejecting the appeal noted in its order, “Identification of the Appellant has remained unchallenged and there is no reason to doubt the prosecution case that the victim had identified the Appellant in the Court at the time of her deposition. The Appellant had spent considerable time with the victim while the offence was committed. It was a trauma which the victim was not likely to forget. Therefore, her identification of the Appellant assumes importance and in fact, proves the prosecution case beyond a reasonable doubt.”