LexMAHADEO S/O KERBA MASKE versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2013] 17 S.C.R. 667 MAHADEO S/O KERBA MASKE v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR. (Criminal Appeal No.6 of 2010) JULY 23, 2013 [A.K. PATNAIK AND FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, JJ.] A B Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 363 and 376 - Kidnapping and rape - Of a girl abqut 15 years of age - Conviction by courts below concluding that prosecutrix was aged below 18 years - C Held: In view of the version of the prosecutrix, which was fully supported by chemical analyst report as well as medical evidence, appellant rightly convicted - Conviction upheld. Criminal Trial - Rape case - Determination of age of o prosecutrix - Opinion of doctor as regards age of prosecutrix - Cannot be relied on if such opinion is formed without scientific examination of prosecutrix such as ossification test - r.12(3)(b) of Juvenile Justice Rules specifically provides that medical opinion can be sought only in absence of alternative E methods described ulr. 12(3)(a)(i) and (iii) - Juvenile (Care and Pratection) Rules, 2007 - ss. 12(3)(a)(i) and (iii) and 12(3)(b) . . Prosecution was initiated against the appellant- accused u/ss. 363, 376 and 506 IPC. The prosecution F case was that the prosecutrix (a 15 years old girl) who used to participate in programmes of 'Bhajan' singing, got acquainted with the appellant-accused, who was a musician and singer. He allured her to come along with him to prepare audio cassettes of her 'Bhajans' and G songs, which would fetch her a lot of money. One day he persuaded her to go along with him to another State and asked her to bring ornaments from her house. As a result, the prosecutrix took gold ornaments worth Rs. one Jakh · 667 H 668 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 17 S.C.R. A and went with him. The accused confined her in a relative's house for more than one month 20 days and committed forcible sexual intercourse. When he came to know that missing report has been lodged, he brought the prosecutrix back to her place. Trial court convicted s the accused for the offences charged. High Court confirmed the conviction u/ss. 363 ar.d 376 IPC, but acquitted him u/s. 506. Hence the present appeal. Dismissing the appeal, the Court C HELD: 1.1. Every relevant factor required for arriving at a just conclusion about the age of the prosecutrix PW- 3, was appropriately made and consequently the conclusion arrived at by the trial court and confirmed by the High Court that the prosecutrix was below 18 years D of age at the time of the occurrence, was perfectly justified. [Para 8] (673-C] 1.2. Merely based on the opinion of PW-8 (the doctor), who in her evidence stated that the age of the E prosecutrix could have been between 17 to 25 years, the age ofthe prosecutrix could not be acted upon. The trial court correctly found that to rely upon the said version of PW-8, scientific examination of the prosecutrix such as, ossification test to ascertain the exact age should have F been conducted which was not done in the present case. [Para 9] (673-D-F] 1.3. Under Rule 12(3)(b) of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Rules, 2007 it is specifically provided that only in the absence of alternative methods described under G 12(3)(a)(i) to (iii), the medical opinion can be sought for. In the light of such a statutory rule prevailing for ascertainment of the age of a juvenile, the same yardstick can be rightly followed by the Courts for the purpose of ascertaining the age of a victim as well. (Para 11] (674-C- H D] MAHADEO v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 669 1.4. In the instant case, there were certificates issued A by the school in which the prosecutrix did her Vth standard and in the school leaving certificate issued by the said school under Exhibit 54, the date of birth of the prosecutrix has been clearly noted as 20.05.1990, and this document was also proved by PW-11. Apart from the B transfer certificate as well as the admission form maintained by the primary school where the prosecutrix had her initial education, also confirmed the date of birth as 20.5.1990. The reliance placed upon the said evidence by the Courts below to arrive at the age of the prosecutrix c to hold that the prosecutrix was below 18 years of age at the time of the occurrence was perfectly justified. [Para 12) [67 4-E-G] 2.1. The Rrosecutrix PW-3, in her evidence had narrated every minute detail as to how the appellant D allured her by taking advantage of her contact with him while singin
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.