Factual Background 

In the instant case of Dilip v State of Maharashtra, The original accused appealed the learned Special Judge’s decision to find him guilty of violating Sections 376(1) of the Penal Code of 1860 and Section 5(m) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act of 2012, which are both punishable under Section 6 of the POCSO Act. In a report to Kinwat Police Station, the mother of a 6-year-old victim accused the convicted rapist of raping the child while the mother was out at a monthly market. The victim admitted that the accused had promised to take her for one rupee, took her with him, bound her mouth, and then raped her. The culprit was given a life sentence and a default punishment of Rs. 1,000 by a single judge. 

Analysis of Court order 

A division bench of Justices S G Chapalgaonkar and Vijay Kankanwadi of the Bombay High Court rejected the appeal since the victim’s testimony was supported by medical evidence.

A six-year-old child cannot incriminate anybody, the court concluded, because the informant was not home and the victim was playing outside. The youngster claimed to have travelled with her grandma on the day of the event and described it in detail in her examination-in-chief. She asserted that her testimony is based on a stray comment and denied deposing the same thing under her grandmother’s demand. The court also pointed out that there are no basic medical facilities and no health services in rural regions. In order to conduct medical examinations on the casualties, district hospitals must be contacted.

The court emphasised the need of bringing rape victims to the closest medical professional in order to avoid evidence from deteriorating or being lost. However, police frequently avoid contacting private doctors or are uncooperative, rendering belated tests useless. The victim had a white discharge surrounding the urethra, a mucosal laceration on the right side of the labia minora, guarding and pain on the right side, and an intact hymen, according to the physical examination. The injury was one to two days old, and the evidence was strong for a sexual assault. The victim’s testimony was backed by the medical findings, and the whole weight of the evidence establishes the accused’s guilt beyond a shadow of doubt examination.

CASE NAME – Dilip v State of Maharashtra, Criminal Appeal No. 584 of 2016