Patna HC Upholds Man’s Conviction For Sexually Assaulting Minor, Cuts Jail Term To Time Already Served

The prosecution alleged that, at about midnight on 16 December 2015, Gorelal Singh entered the informant’s house through a window and molested the informant’s granddaughter while she was sleeping with her sister; the victim and other witnesses said they identified him by torchlight.

The victim’s sister and the victim supported the allegation at trial, while the medical examination found no injury and assessed the victim’s age as between 15 and 16 years.

The trial court convicted the appellant under Sections 448 and 354 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act), but acquitted him of the charges relating to theft and attempted rape.

He appealed against the conviction and sentence, relying on alleged inconsistencies, the absence of injury, and a claimed monetary dispute.

The Court considered the offences of house-trespass under Section 448 IPC, assault or criminal force to a woman with intent to outrage her modesty under Section 354 IPC, and sexual assault under Section 8 of the POCSO Act.

It applied the evidentiary principle that the absence of physical injury does not, by itself, discredit a victim’s testimony; the evidence must be considered as a whole and in context.

The Court found that the victim specifically attributed the sexual assault to the appellant and that her sister’s account supported her testimony.

It considered the asserted inconsistencies, including differences from the Section 164 CrPC statement, in the context of the evidence as a whole, and held that the absence of injury was not sufficient by itself to reject the victim’s account.

Finding no sufficient ground to disturb the trial court’s assessment, the Court affirmed the convictions.

For sentence, it considered the circumstances of the occurrence and the period already served sufficient to modify the substantive terms to the period undergone.

Any fine already paid was to remain deposited; if unpaid, the appellant was not required to pay it. He was discharged from his bail bond.