-
by sayum
23 April 2025 8:57 AM
The silence here is that of a child. It cannot be equated with the silence of a fully realised adult prosecutrix – In a deeply moving and sharply reasoned judgment, the Bombay High Court upheld the life sentence awarded to Vilas Laxman Chawan, convicted for the brutal rape of a 4-year-old girl in 2012, declaring that the testimony of the child victim, even when recorded four years later, carried the stamp of truth.
Delivering the judgment, Justice Revati Mohite Dere and Justice Dr. Neela Gokhale emphatically rejected the appeal against the 2017 conviction, ruling that the victim’s account was “consistent, detailed and unwavering”, and the prosecution had proved its case beyond reasonable doubt.
“There is nothing in the testimony of either PW/2 and PW/3 to remotely doubt their evidence,” the Court observed, referring to the mother and the victim. “The sequence of events asserted by the prosecution is complete.”
“The child’s version remained intact even after 4 years – she is a sterling witness”
The victim, who was only 4 years old at the time of the crime, had gone out to buy toffees and did not return. Later that night, the appellant brought her home, claiming he found her at a bus stop with a stranger. But the father, noticing that she was bleeding from her private parts, took her immediately to hospital and informed the police.
In court, the victim (then 8 years old) described how the accused lured her with food, took her to the railway tracks, removed her knickers, raped her, and threatened to throw her on the tracks if she spoke up.
Quoting Rai Sandeep v. State (NCT of Delhi), the Bench described the victim as a “sterling witness” whose statement met every legal standard of credibility: “She identified the Appellant without hesitation... She said that it was raining, that she was standing at the shop, that she was taken for Chinese food, and then assaulted. She stood firm under cross-examination. Her testimony inspires confidence.”
“Delay in FIR and mother’s silence natural – trauma of family considered”
The Court dismissed defence arguments regarding a two-hour delay in lodging the FIR and the mother’s failure to immediately inform the father. It held: “It is quite normal that a minor child of 4 years may have inhibition in confiding in a father than her mother… PW/2 explained she didn’t tell her husband because he had recently undergone surgery. We find this explanation quite plausible.”
The Court referred to State of Rajasthan v. Chatra (2025 INSC 360), observing: “The tears of a child/victim have to be understood for what they are worth. The silence here is that of a child—it cannot be equated with the silence of a fully realised adult prosecutrix.”
“Chain of DNA custody intact – samples matched Appellant’s DNA”
Rejecting defence claims that the DNA evidence was compromised, the High Court held that the chain of custody of forensic samples was seamless and adequately proven through multiple witnesses (PW/10, PW/11, PW/12).
“There is no suggestion given to any witness alleging tampering of the seal… the samples were sealed when received by the FSL… the DNA profile of the swab matched with the Appellant’s blood sample.”
Medical evidence by PW/8, the treating doctor, confirmed rape-related injuries and corroborated the victim’s statement.
“Appellant gave no explanation under Section 313 CrPC – failed to use lawful opportunity”
One of the most damning observations came from the Court’s analysis of the accused’s Section 313 CrPC statement, which allows the accused to explain the evidence against him.
“Even when asked to explain his version that he saw the victim with a stranger and fought with him, the Appellant gave no explanation. He failed to avail this opportunity. This strengthens the prosecution’s case.”
“Conviction stands confirmed – appeal dismissed”
The Court concluded: “The trial Judge has correctly appreciated the evidence. The defence has been unable to dent the testimony of the witnesses. The statements of the victim, her mother, the medical officer and the DNA report clearly establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.”
was upheld in full, along with life imprisonment, fines totaling ₹14,000, and compensation of ₹7,000 to be paid to the victim.
Date of Decision: 4 April 2025
