The Bombay High Court has held that the testimony of a minor sexual assault victim cannot be rejected merely because she is unable to describe the sexual act with precision. The Court observed that a very young child cannot be expected to understand or narrate a traumatic sexual assault in the same manner as an adult. In an important judgment delivered by its Aurangabad Bench, a Division Bench comprising Justice Sandipkumar More and Justice Vaishali Patil-Jadhav reversed the acquittal of a man who had been accused of kidnapping and raping a six-year-old girl in 2012. The Court found that the trial court had incorrectly assessed the evidence and had placed undue importance on minor discrepancies in the child’s account.
The case arose from an incident that occurred on May 3, 2012, when the victim was only six years old. The prosecution case was that the child was taken away by the accused, Anil Shridhar Gaikwad, who was known to her as “Anya.” According to the evidence presented before the Court, the girl had been watching television at the house of her sister-in-law when the accused came there and asked her to accompany him towards a flour mill. The incident subsequently took the child towards a dam, where the prosecution alleged that she was sexually assaulted. The case was therefore one involving both kidnapping and rape of a very young child.
The circumstances in which the child was subsequently found were also important to the prosecution case. She was found unconscious beneath a tamarind tree, and her mother and other family members noticed that blood was coming from her private parts. After she regained consciousness, the child narrated to her parents that “Anya” had taken her to the location. Based on the information provided by the child and the circumstances in which she was found, a First Information Report was registered against the accused. The prosecution thereafter proceeded with the criminal case, ultimately resulting in a trial before the competent court.
The trial court, however, acquitted Anil Gaikwad by its judgment dated April 19, 2017. One of the important reasons behind the acquittal was the trial court’s assessment that the six-year-old victim had not been able to properly describe the precise sexual act allegedly committed against her. The trial court treated the child as a witness and her evidence was recorded in question-and-answer form. The State challenged the acquittal before the Bombay High Court, arguing that the trial court had failed to properly appreciate the evidence and had attached excessive significance to the inability of a very young child to provide a detailed description of the assault.
The Bombay High Court disagreed with the trial court’s approach. The Division Bench emphasised that the victim was only six years old when the incident occurred. According to the High Court, a child of such tender age cannot reasonably be expected to narrate an act of sexual assault with the precision and technical understanding that may be expected from an adult witness. A young child may not even understand the precise nature of the sexual act, particularly when the incident is traumatic and frightening. Therefore, the Court held that the inability of a minor victim to clearly describe the sexual act cannot, by itself, become a reason to discard her testimony.
The High Court also stressed that a child victim’s evidence must be assessed keeping in mind her age and level of understanding. The Court observed that the testimony of a child cannot be tested on exactly the same parameters as the testimony of an adult witness. Children may describe events according to their own understanding and vocabulary. In a case involving sexual violence, the inability to use precise terminology or provide a detailed explanation should not automatically undermine the credibility of the child. The Court therefore considered the victim’s evidence in the context of her age and the circumstances in which she had experienced the alleged assault.
Another factor that influenced the High Court was the consistency of the victim’s testimony. The Court noted that there had been a substantial gap of nearly five years between the incident and the recording of her examination-in-chief. Despite the passage of approximately four and a half years, the child continued to identify the accused and consistently narrated the essential features of what had happened to her. She stated that the accused had taken her towards the dam, tied her eyes, lifted her, removed her undergarment and sat on her. She also stated that he slapped her and that she experienced severe pain in the uterus after the incident.
The Court considered it particularly significant that the victim’s testimony remained substantially unshaken during cross-examination. The Bench found that her evidence was consistent with the account she had given despite the long period that had elapsed between the incident and her testimony. She specifically named the accused and described the events in terms that were understandable from the perspective of a child. The Court held that such evidence could not be lightly brushed aside merely because the victim was unable to explain the sexual act in precise terms.
The High Court further observed that a six-year-old child would ordinarily have no apparent motive to falsely implicate a person in such a serious offence. The Bench therefore considered the victim’s account to be credible and trustworthy. It rejected the approach of examining her testimony through the same standards applicable to an adult witness. The Court’s reasoning highlights the importance of considering the psychological and developmental limitations of child witnesses, particularly when they are required to testify about traumatic experiences that they may not fully comprehend.
The Court also criticised the trial court for giving undue importance to minor discrepancies in the evidence. According to the High Court, the trial court’s findings represented a “complete misreading” of the evidence on record. The Bench concluded that the trial court had failed to properly assess the credibility and trustworthiness of the victim’s testimony and had treated minor inconsistencies as if they were fatal to the prosecution case. The High Court found that the trial court’s approach was perverse and that its conclusions were contrary to the evidence available on record.
An important legal aspect of the judgment is that the incident occurred in 2012, before the enactment of the stringent provisions of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, commonly known as the POCSO Act. Consequently, the case was considered under the criminal law applicable at the time of the offence. The High Court ultimately convicted the accused for kidnapping and rape, reversing the earlier acquittal. The decision demonstrates that the absence of a precise description of the sexual act by a young child cannot be treated as a decisive weakness when the overall evidence establishes a consistent and credible account of the assault.
While determining the sentence, the High Court considered several circumstances. The Court noted that the accused had already spent approximately five years in custody during the course of the trial. At the time of the incident in 2012, he was approximately 22 years old, whereas he was around 36 years old when the High Court delivered its judgment. The Court also took note of the fact that the accused had subsequently married and that the victim had also married and settled into her life. These circumstances were considered while determining the appropriate sentence under the law applicable to the offence.
The offence of rape under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code carried a punishment that could extend to life imprisonment. However, because the incident occurred in 2012, the Court considered the minimum sentence prescribed under the version of Section 376 applicable at that time. The Bench concluded that a sentence of seven years’ imprisonment, along with a fine, would be appropriate in the circumstances. Since the accused had already spent approximately five years in prison during the proceedings, he was directed to surrender before the police to undergo the remaining portion of his sentence, which was approximately two years.
The Court also considered whether compensation should be awarded to the victim. However, the Bench ultimately decided not to grant compensation through an order that would require her to return to court or participate in additional proceedings. The Court noted that the victim, who had been only six years old at the time of the incident, was approximately 20 years old when the judgment was delivered. She was married, had two children and was settled in her life. The Court expressed concern that requiring her to return to the judicial process to pursue compensation could force her to revisit the traumatic experience of her childhood. The Bench therefore chose not to award compensation, with the stated objective of avoiding further disturbance to her settled life.
The judgment is significant because it reinforces a child-sensitive approach to evaluating evidence in sexual offence cases. A child victim may not possess the vocabulary, knowledge or psychological capacity to provide a detailed account of sexual activity. Expecting such precision from a young child can result in an unrealistic evidentiary standard and may cause genuine testimony to be rejected for reasons unrelated to its actual credibility. The Bombay High Court’s decision makes clear that courts must examine the evidence in light of the child’s age, understanding, circumstances and overall consistency rather than focusing mechanically on whether every aspect of the alleged sexual act has been described in exact terms.
The judgment also underscores the importance of distinguishing between material contradictions and minor discrepancies. Criminal courts must carefully examine whether inconsistencies actually affect the core prosecution case. In this matter, the High Court found that the essential narrative remained consistent: the child identified the accused, described being taken away, narrated the circumstances of the assault and explained the pain she experienced afterward. The Court concluded that the minor variations relied upon by the trial court did not undermine the fundamental credibility of her evidence.
The ruling is therefore not merely about the inability of a child to describe a sexual act. It is also about how courts should approach testimony from vulnerable witnesses. The High Court recognised that a six-year-old victim of sexual violence should not be expected to possess an adult’s understanding of sexual conduct. Her evidence must instead be considered realistically and sensitively, without lowering the standard of proof but also without imposing unrealistic expectations on the manner in which a child must describe trauma. The Court’s approach seeks to ensure that genuine child testimony is not rejected solely because of limitations arising naturally from childhood.
In conclusion, the Bombay High Court’s decision in State of Maharashtra v. Anil Shridhar Gaikwad, Criminal Appeal No. 993 of 2019, marks an important reaffirmation of the principle that a minor sexual assault victim’s testimony cannot be discarded simply because she cannot precisely describe the sexual act. The Court found that the six-year-old victim’s testimony remained consistent, identified the accused and was not materially shaken in cross-examination. It held that the trial court had misread the evidence and wrongly relied upon minor discrepancies before acquitting the accused. The High Court consequently reversed the acquittal, convicted Gaikwad for kidnapping and rape, imposed the applicable minimum sentence of seven years along with a fine, and directed him to undergo the remaining period of imprisonment. At the same time, the Court declined to award compensation in order to avoid compelling the now-adult victim to revisit the trauma of her childhood. The judgment ultimately reinforces a sensitive and realistic judicial approach towards evidence given by child victims of sexual offences.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.