The High Court of Uttarakhand affirmed the conviction of a father for attempted rape of his minor daughter under Sections 376(2) and 511 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 10 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, rejecting claims of inconsistent testimony and insufficient medical evidence. The judgment clarifies that the absence of spermatozoa or vaginal injury does not by itself discredit a prosecutrix’s version, especially when her account is consistent and corroborated by circumstantial evidence.
Background & Facts
The Incident
On 21.02.2015 at approximately 03:00 p.m., the prosecutrix, a minor girl whose identity is withheld, was at her house in Ranikhet, District Almora. According to the prosecution, the appellant, who is her father, was also present in the house. It is alleged that the appellant closed the door of the house, gagged the mouth of the prosecutrix, removed her clothes and attempted to commit sexual intercourse with her. On hearing her cries, her aunt and other family members reached the spot, whereupon the appellant allegedly fled.
Investigation and Charge Sheet
- The First Information Report (FIR) No.04 of 2015 was registered at Police Station Ranikhet, District Almora, against the appellant.
- During investigation, the statement of the prosecutrix under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded.
- Medical examination of the prosecutrix was conducted by Dr. Sunita, who found the hymen intact, vaginal aperture normal, no injury, and no spermatozoa in the vaginal swab.
- The appellant was medically examined by Dr. Kamlesh Kumar Pandey on 22.02.2015, revealing a bruise below his right eye.
- After completing investigation and necessary formalities, the Investigating Officer submitted a charge-sheet against the appellant before the competent court under the relevant provisions of the IPC and the POCSO Act.
Trial Court Proceedings
- The learned Magistrate committed the case to the Court of Session.
- Charges under Section 376(2) read with Section 511 IPC and Section 10 of the POCSO Act, 2012 were framed against the appellant.
- The prosecution examined nine witnesses, including the prosecutrix (PW-1), her aunt (PW-2), the appellant’s wife (PW-3), another aunt (PW-4), two doctors (PW-5 and PW-6), the school principal (PW-7), a police constable (PW-8), and the investigating officer (PW-9).
- After hearing the parties, the trial court found the charges proved beyond reasonable doubt, convicted the appellant, and sentenced him to:
- imprisonment for half of the period of life imprisonment under Section 376(2) read with Section 511 IPC,
- a fine of Rs.20,000 with three months’ rigorous imprisonment in default,
- seven years’ rigorous imprisonment under Section 10 of the POCSO Act with a fine of Rs.20,000 and three months’ rigorous imprisonment in default,
- both sentences to run concurrently,
- payment of Rs.30,000 to the prosecutrix from the Victim Compensation Fund,
- consequential directions for counseling of the prosecutrix and her mother.
- The judgment and order were dated 11.08.2015.
Procedural History
- 11.08.2015: Trial court judgment and order of conviction and sentence.
- Date of appeal: Criminal Appeal No.309 of 2015 filed (exact filing date not specified in judgment).
- 10.09.2026: Judgment reserved by the High Court of Uttarakhand.
- 29.09.2026: Judgment delivered.
Relief Sought
The appellant sought:
- Setting aside of the trial court’s conviction and sentence.
- Acquittal from the charges.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the prosecution had proved the offence of attempt to rape under Section 376(2) read with Section 511 IPC and Section 10 of the POCSO Act beyond reasonable doubt, despite the absence of medical evidence of penetration (intact hymen, no vaginal injury, no spermatozoa) and the alleged inconsistencies in witness testimony, particularly given the relationship between the prosecutrix and the appellant.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant/Petitioner
The appellant contended that:
- The prosecution had failed to establish involvement beyond reasonable doubt due to material contradictions and inconsistencies in the statements of prosecution witnesses.
- The medical and pathological evidence did not corroborate the prosecution version, notably the intact hymen, absence of vaginal injury, and absence of spermatozoa.
- The allegation of prior misconduct was not satisfactorily established, and the defence plea of strained relations and false implication had not been properly appreciated.
- Therefore, the appellant was entitled to the benefit of doubt.
For the Respondent/State
The State countered that:
- The prosecution had duly proved its case through the consistent testimony of the prosecutrix and other prosecution witnesses.
- The minor age of the prosecutrix and the nature of the occurrence had been proved on record.
- The medical evidence did not negate the allegation of attempt, and the trial court had rightly appreciated the evidence.
- No interference was warranted in the appeal.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the evidence thoroughly. It noted that the testimony of PW-1 (the prosecutrix) was consistent on material particulars of the occurrence and was in consonance with her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. Her version received assurance from the evidence of PW-2 and PW-4, who reached the place of occurrence upon hearing her cries and found the appellant and the prosecutrix in the circumstances deposed by them.
The Court held that the absence of spermatozoa or vaginal injury could not by itself discredit otherwise trustworthy testimony of the prosecutrix, relying on Ravindra v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2015) 4 SCC 491, which followed Narayanamma v. State of Karnataka, (1994) 5 SCC 728.
Regarding the offence of attempt, the Court observed that the prosecutrix deposed that the appellant removed her pyjama and his own clothes, lay upon her, and attempted to commit sexual intercourse by putting his penis into her vagina, causing her pain. The act was interrupted when she raised cries and other persons reached the spot. Drawing from Chaitu Lal v. State of Uttarakhand, (2019) 20 SCC 272, the Court held that such conduct - pouncing upon the victim, sitting upon her, lifting her petticoat in the face of resistance and cries - constitutes an attempt to commit rape. The fact that the intended act could not be completed due to the prosecutrix’s cries and the arrival of others did not revert the conduct to mere preparation.
The Court further noted that alleged discrepancies in witness statements were not of such nature as to affect the core of the prosecution case. PW-2 and PW-4 supported the immediate circumstances, while PW-3, though not an eyewitness, corroborated the subsequent disclosure made by the prosecutrix.
Thus, the prosecution had succeeded in proving the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt, the trial court had properly appreciated the evidence, and its findings did not suffer from any perversity or illegality warranting interference.
"The testimony of the prosecutrix, therefore, cannot be discarded merely on the ground that the appellant is her father, particularly when her version has remained consistent and receives assurance from the surrounding circumstances."
The Verdict
The appeal was dismissed. The judgment and order dated 11.08.2015 passed by the learned Special Judge/Sessions Judge, Almora in Special Sessions Trial No.07 of 2015, State vs. Umesh Ram, arising out of FIR No.04 of 2015, Police Station Ranikhet, District Almora, is affirmed. The sentence awarded by the trial court shall remain intact, comprising:
- imprisonment for half of the period of life imprisonment under Section 376(2) read with Section 511 IPC,
- fine of Rs.20,000 with three months’ rigorous imprisonment in default,
- seven years’ rigorous imprisonment under Section 10 of the POCSO Act, 2012 with fine of Rs.20,000 and three months’ rigorous imprisonment in default,
- both sentences to run concurrently,
- payment of Rs.30,000 to the prosecutrix from the Victim Compensation Fund,
- consequential directions for counseling of the prosecutrix and her mother.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Medical Evidence Not Dispositive
- Absence of spermatozoa or vaginal injury does not automatically discredit a prosecutrix’s testimony.
- Consistency of the victim’s account and corroboration by circumstantial evidence are crucial.
Corroboration Through Circumstantial Evidence
- Testimony of witnesses who reach the scene upon hearing the victim’s cries provides assurance.
- Subsequent disclosures to family members can bolster credibility.
Standard for Attempt Under IPC and POCSO
- Conduct that proceeds beyond preparation - such as removal of clothes, physical positioning, and acts in the face of resistance - constitutes an attempt.
- Interruption by third parties does not reduce the offence to mere preparation.
Application of Precedent
- Courts must follow Ravindra v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Chaitu Lal v. State of Uttarakhand when evaluating attempt cases lacking medical proof of penetration.
