10-year sentence upheld for sexually assaulting 73-year-old woman under guise of driving out evil spirits Dip.

The appellant was convicted by the Special Court under Sections 354A(1)(i) and 376(1) IPC and sentenced to concurrent terms of imprisonment, including ten years’ rigorous imprisonment under Section 376(1).

The prosecution alleged that, on 8 October 2022, the appellant sexually assaulted the 73-year-old victim at her home, including by touching her breasts and inserting a finger into her vagina.

At trial, the victim initially gave the date of the occurrence as 7 October 2022, but, when recalled, said that the correct date was 8 October 2022; the prosecution attributed the discrepancy to an earlier mistake and memory loss.

The appellant also challenged the delayed FIR, the absence of external injuries, the CDR evidence, and the alleged motive arising from a property dispute.

He appealed against the conviction and sentence.

1. Whether the evidence justified the conviction under Section 354A(1)(i) IPC.

2. Whether the evidence justified the conviction under Section 376(1) IPC, notwithstanding the discrepancy in the victim’s evidence about the date of occurrence.

3. Whether the conviction or sentence required appellate interference.

The Court considered the offences charged under Sections 354A(1)(i) and 376(1) IPC, assessing whether the victim’s account established the acts alleged and the ingredients of those offences.

It also considered the evidentiary significance of the delayed FIR, inconsistencies in the victim’s account, medical evidence, and electronic call records.

On the CDR objection, the Court held that Ext. P19 included a certificate under Section 65B of the Evidence Act.

The appellant cited State of Rajasthan v. Kalki, Radhey Shyam v. State of Rajasthan, Mahendra Pratap Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, Thulia Kali v. State of Tamil Nadu, Marudanal Augusti v. State of Kerala, Dilawar Singh v. State of Delhi, and Subhash v. State of Haryana in support of his challenges; the Court found those submissions did not warrant rejecting the prosecution evidence.

The Court treated the victim’s correction of the date as a mistake in the initial account, noting that she had given a subsequent statement identifying 8 October 2022 and that Ext. P19 showed three calls between the appellant and the victim on that date.

It accepted her explanation that she delayed reporting until after discussing the matter with her son and daughters, and held that the 19-day delay did not discredit her account.

The absence of external injuries was not inconsistent with the allegation because the medical examination took place 20 days after the incident, and the doctor stated that any injury could have healed by then.

The Court found that Ext. P19 contained the required certificate, that the contradictions in other witnesses’ accounts were not material, and that the evidence supported the victim’s account despite the defence evidence concerning a property dispute.

The appeal was dismissed and the conviction and sentence confirmed; the suspension of sentence and bail were cancelled, and the appellant was directed to surrender forthwith, failing which the Special Court was to execute the sentence.