Pune: A Pune court has sentenced a 24-year-old man to 20 years’ rigorous imprisonment for raping a six-year-old girl, observing that the accused knew he was HIV infected and nevertheless engaged in a forced and unprotected sexual act that risked transmitting a life-threatening disease.
The court further observed, “The deliberate and non-consensual act of forced sexual intercourse by a person aware of his HIV positive status constitutes a malignant act rather than mere negligence. The FIR in the case was registered at Velha police station. The court rejected the defence argument that the victim made improvements in her account.
Special Judge (under POCSO Act) and Additional Sessions Judge Sucheta M Takalikar, in her judgment dated August 20, recorded, “The accused has knowledge that he is an HIV-infected person; then also he has engaged in a forced and unprotected sexual act that risks the transmission of life-threatening disease. The case related to an incident of November 15, 2019, when the victim was around six-years-old. The court convicted the accused under Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, besides convicting him under Sections 269 read with 270 of the Indian Penal Code. The court also imposed a fine of ₹ 10,000 for the POCSO offence. He was also sentenced to six months’ rigorous imprisonment and fined ₹ 1,000 under Sections 269 read with 270 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
The accused took the girl to an old school building on the pretext of giving her a guava and raped her, according to the judgment.
It noted that the child was only about five years and six months old at the time of the incident and held that minor omissions in her earlier statement did not undermine the prosecution case.
The court relied substantially on the evidence of the victim and her mother, observing that the child’s account was consistent and trustworthy. The District Legal Services Authority, Pune, was also directed to provide compensation to the victim as per the applicable rules. The court also directed that ₹ 10,000 from the fine be paid to the victim, as compensation after the appeal period. The remaining ₹ 1,000 was directed to be credited to the government.
“Minor omission does not raise doubt about the prosecution story,” the court observed while rejecting the defence contention concerning the victim’s statements.
