Summary
The Court dismissed the accused’s special leave petition against concurrent findings of rape of a six-year-old child, supported by the child’s testimony and her mother’s eyewitness account. It agreed with the rejection of the claimed physical impossibility arising from the accused having only one hand. Because the State had not appealed and the incident was twenty years old, the Court expressly refrained from examining section 376(2) and reduction of its minimum punishment.
Issues
- Whether the concurrent findings warranted interference in special leave proceedings.
- Whether the sentencing question under section 376(2) should be examined.
Held
- The child’s testimony and the mother’s eyewitness evidence supported the concurrent findings. The accused’s assertion that having one hand made the offence physically impossible had been considered by both courts and was rejected. (¶ 3–4)
- On examining the charge, the Court found it framed under section 376 rather than confined to section 376(1). Nevertheless, with no State appeal and an incident twenty years earlier, it dismissed the petition without deciding the section 376(2) sentencing question or whether the minimum punishment could be reduced on the facts. (¶¶ 1–2, 4–5)
Result
Special leave petition dismissed; concurrent findings left undisturbed, with the stated sentencing question not examined.