Accused's arguments on delay, victim's testimony, and framing of charges dismissed; seven-year imprisonment confirmed.
In a significant judgment, the Meghalaya High Court has upheld the conviction of Shri Chanky Shadap for the rape of a minor girl. The court dismissed the appeal filed by Shadap, challenging his conviction and sentence under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860. The judgment, delivered by Justice W. Diengdoh, reaffirmed the decision of the lower court, which had sentenced Shadap to seven years of imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 10,000.
The case dates back to July 25, 2010, when the alleged incident occurred. According to the prosecution, the victim, a 14-year-old girl, was returning from an evening church service when Shadap forcibly took her into the jungle and raped her. The First Information Report (FIR) was lodged four days later, on July 29, 2010, after discussions involving the victim’s family, the village headman, and a local NGO.
During the appeal, Shadap's counsel argued that the delay in lodging the FIR raised suspicions of embellishment and false implication. Furthermore, the defense contended that the victim's testimony had inconsistencies and lacked the reliability of a "sterling witness." They also questioned the framing of charges, claiming that the absence of a specific charge under Section 375 IPC deprived Shadap of the opportunity to maintain his defense properly.
The High Court, however, found the victim's testimony credible and corroborated by medical evidence. Justice Diengdoh noted that despite minor discrepancies, the victim's account was consistent with her statement recorded under Section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC). The court dismissed the argument of unexplained delay, citing case law that recognizes reasonable explanations for delays in filing FIRs in sexual offense cases.
The court also addressed the contention regarding the framing of charges, stating that the accused was aware of the nature of allegations and participated in the trial without raising objections. The court referenced relevant case law to assert that the absence of a formal charge does not necessarily occasion a failure of justice.
In conclusion, the High Court held that the appellant's arguments lacked merit and upheld the trial court's decision. The appeal was dismissed, reaffirming the conviction and sentence of Shri Chanky Shadap under Section 376 IPC.
Bottom Line:
Conviction under Section 376 IPC for rape - Reliability of victim's testimony, delay in lodging FIR, and framing of charges examined.
Statutory provision(s): Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 375 and 376; Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Sections 164, 215, 313, 464, 465
Shri. Chanky Shadap v. State of Meghalaya, (Meghalaya) : Law Finder Doc id # 2869667
