Father’s conviction upheld for attempting to rape his under-12 daughter in Uttarakhand เครดิตฟรี

The appellant, the prosecutrix’s father, was accused of gagging her, removing her clothes and attempting penile-vaginal intercourse at their home on 21 February 2015.

The prosecutrix was under twelve years of age.

Her aunt and other family members arrived after hearing her cries; the aunt testified that the appellant and prosecutrix were in an unclothed condition.

Medical examination found no vaginal injury, hymenal tear or spermatozoa.

The trial court convicted the appellant under Section 376(2) read with Section 511 IPC and Section 10 of the POCSO Act, and imposed concurrent sentences.

He appealed under Section 374(2) CrPC

1. Whether the prosecutrix’s testimony, considered with the supporting circumstances, proved the appellant’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt despite the alleged contradictions and the defence plea of false implication.

2. Whether the medical findings and absence of penetration negated the allegation of attempted rape.

3. Whether the appellant’s conduct amounted to an attempt to commit rape, rather than mere preparation.

The Court considered Section 376(2) read with Section 511 IPC in relation to the offence of attempted rape and Section 10 of the POCSO Act, 2012, under which the appellant had been convicted.

It relied on Ravindra v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2015) 4 SCC 491, citing Narayanamma v. State of Karnataka, (1994) 5 SCC 728, for the principle that absence of spermatozoa on a vaginal smear does not, by itself, discredit the prosecutrix’s account.

It also applied Chaitu Lal v. State of Uttarakhand, (2019) 20 SCC 272, which treats conduct directed towards sexual assault, accompanied by resistance and cries, as capable of constituting an attempt rather than mere preparation.

The Court further held that absence of hymenal injury or other medical corroboration does not by itself undermine otherwise trustworthy testimony.

The Court found the prosecutrix’s account consistent on the material particulars and in accord with her Section 164 CrPC statement.

It was supported by the evidence of her aunt and another witness concerning the circumstances immediately after the cries, and by the proof that the prosecutrix was under twelve.

The Court considered the absence of injury, penetration and spermatozoa insufficient to displace that evidence.

It concluded that removing both parties’ clothes, lying upon the prosecutrix and attempting penile-vaginal insertion went beyond preparation; the arrival of others interrupted the act.

The alleged inconsistencies and strained family relations did not undermine the core prosecution case.

It dismissed the appeal and affirmed the conviction and sentences under Section 376(2) read with Section 511 IPC and Section 10 of the POCSO Act, leaving the trial court’s sentence intact