The Bombay High Court has upheld the conviction and sentence of life imprisonment imposed on a man convicted of repeatedly raping a minor girl, holding that an error in framing the charge under a repealed provision of the IPC did not result in any failure of justice.
The appellant had challenged his conviction on the ground that the trial court framed a charge under Section 376(2)(i) IPC, which had been deleted in 2018, before the date of the incident, while sentencing him under Section 376(3) IPC for rigorous life imprisonment and a fine of ₹50,000. It was contended that this procedural lapse vitiated the trial.
Rejecting the argument, the Bench of Justice Manish Pitale and Justice Manjusha Deshpande held that an error in framing charge would not invalidate a conviction unless it caused prejudice to the accused. The Court noted that charge framed on June 13, 2019 covered offences relating to wrongful confinement, kidnapping, rape on woman under 16 (deleated), repeated rape, criminal intimidation under sections 342, 363, Section 376(2)(i), 376(2)(n), 506, respectively, and aggravated penetrative sexual assault under Section 6 of the POCSO Act. The Court further noted that the appellant was fully aware that he was being tried for raping a minor below the age of 16 years and had defended himself on that basis throughout the trial.
Emphasising the need to balance the rights of the accused and the victim, the Court cautioned against hyper-technical objections derailing substantive justice. It observed that excessive focus on the accused’s right to a fair trial should not result in the victim being “forgotten” in the criminal justice process. The court held that “so long as no prejudice is caused to the accused and there is no failure of justice, even if there is an error in framing of charge, the appellant cannot claim re-trial and remand of proceedings to the Trial Court. Instead, the appellate Court can correct the error.”
The High Court further held that it was well within the appellate court’s powers to alter the conviction to Section 376(3) IPC in order to correct the error committed by the trial court, and that such correction did not affect the validity of the sentence imposed. The Court rejected the contention that the appellant had suffered any “lack of meaningful hearing”, observing that even assuming such a defect existed, it stood cured at the appellate stage during the hearing of the appeal.
The Bench emphasised that there was no question of prejudice or failure of justice, particularly because the maximum punishment prescribed under the deleted Section 376(2)(i) IPC and Section 376(3) IPC is identical, both providing for imprisonment for life. The Court noted that both provisions were introduced by the same 2018 amendment and contained identical ingredients, making the alteration purely corrective in nature.
On merits, the Court found the testimony of the minor victim to be consistent and reliable, observing that minor discrepancies were natural and did not affect the core of the prosecution case. The Court held that merely because there was a difference in the timing of about an hour in the evening in the testimonies of the witnesses, would not create any serious doubt about the victim’s version. The Court reiterated that in sexual offences involving children, the victim’s testimony does not require corroboration if it inspires confidence.
Accordingly, the High Court maintained the appellant’s conviction for wrongful confinement, kidnapping, repeated rape and criminal intimidation under the IPC, while altering the conviction from Section 376(2)(i) IPC to Section 376(3) IPC. The conviction under Section 5(l) read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act was also upheld. The sentence of rigorous imprisonment for life, to mean imprisonment for the remainder of the appellant’s natural life, along with a fine of ₹50,000, was affirmed. The appeal was consequently dismissed.
Appearances
Mr. Tapan Thatte a/w. Mr. Vivek Arote and Mr. Akshay Dingale, i/b. Mr.Dayanand Mane for appellant.
Dr. Dhanalakshmi S. Krishnaiyer, APP for respondent No.1-State.
Ms. P. S. Potdar (appointed through legal aid) for respondent No.2
