The Bombay High Court recently upheld the conviction of a 30-year-old man, currently lodged at Nashik Central Jail, for raping a minor boy in February 2013. While dismissing the plea, the court said, “Time has come to protect the interest of the victims as well.”
10 years in jail
A single Bench of Justice Sadhana Jadhav was hearing a criminal appeal filed by Khalil Mehboob Shaikh challenging his conviction on February 27, 2014. He was charged under Sections 323 (punishment for voluntarily causing hurt), 377 (unnatural offences) of the Indian Penal Code, and Section 6 (punishment for aggravated penetrative sexual assault) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act.
Shaikh was sentenced to 10 years in prison and directed to pay ₹10,000 as compensation to the victim.
On February 14, 2013, a constable who was on night patrolling duty in Bandra received a call from the Nirmal Nagar police station. He was informed about reports of suspicious people entering the terrace of a building at the Railway Colony.
A police inspector and personnel from the Crime Detection Branch were also sent to the spot. When the police personnel reached the terrace, they saw a 16-year-old boy lying naked and the accused raping him. The boy’s hands and legs were tied up and he was crying and screaming for help.
After being rescued, the boy told the police that he was an orphan and his grandparents had raised him. The boy said that he had studied up to Class VII and got separated from his grandparents after a local train stalled at Borivali station. He said that the accused then lured him with money, took him to the building and raped him.
During the trial, the defence contested the ossification test report which stated that the boy was 15 or 16 years old at the time of the crime. The High Court said, “It was incumbent upon the investigating agency to obtain the school leaving certificate of the victim, especially when he had given all the details of the institutions where he had studied, to determine the date of birth of the victim. It is true that the investigating agency has failed to carry out the investigation in a proper manner. The investigating agency was insensitive about the whole issue in question and the only evidence available would be the ossification test report.”
While dismissing the appeal, the court said, “In several cases, benefit of doubt is extended to the accused. However, time has come to protect the interest of the victims as well. When the State agencies failed in their duties to establish the case against the accused, beyond reasonable doubt, that too by keeping certain lacunae either in the investigation or at the time of trial, the onus would be upon the courts to see that justice is done to the victim as well.”