Bombay High Court upholds rapist’s 20-year jail sentence after dental test nailed him

Based on the testimony of a forensic odontologist, the Bombay High Court upheld the conviction and sentence of a child rapist sentenced to 20 years in prison by the Mumbai court.


On July 4, 2014, the father of a six-year-old girl left her at her aunt’s house and went to work. When he returned, around 9 p.m., his aunt told him that the minor had been sent to bring him paan from a nearby hotel, but had not returned.

The victim’s father searched for her but could not find her, after which he registered an FIR at Meghwadi police station about her disappearance. He feared that someone had abducted her and hence the offense was recorded under Section 363 of the Indian Penal Code.

The girl was found the following day in an injured condition with bite marks on her lips. The police realized that the girl had been sexually assaulted. Police also realized that a man, Shrinivas Narsimharao Saryadu, had disappeared from the area and his brother had filed a missing person complaint. Saryadu is said to have a criminal history with similar crimes committed in the past.

The accused was eventually arrested in his home town of Andhra Pradesh and brought to Mumbai a fortnight later. His dental impressions were taken and according to a forensic expert, the bite marks on the victim’s lips matched Saryadu’s teeth. The girl had 11 injuries, including bite wounds to her lips, cheek and other parts of her body.

The girl who studied in kindergarten said a man snatched money from her and took her to the jungle where he took off her clothes and threw them away. He beat her and bit her lips while sexually assaulting her on the road from Jogeshwari Vikhroli Link Road to Arey Colony.

It was raining at the time and he squeezed her neck and threw her in the water. A woman, passing in the morning, gave her some clothes to wear and took her to the hospital. She said she didn’t see the attacker because he covered her face with his hands. She admitted that she did not know who this man was and could not identify the attacker when shown his photograph.

The girl’s father had said the girl was in terrible condition in hospital. When the accused was arrested by the police, the father said he did not know his name, but the accused used to go to his friend’s house.

While Saryadu denied the allegations, after an elaborate trial the judge concluded that the expert evidence was compelling and based on that she entered the conviction and sentence. Saryadu was sentenced to 20 years in rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of 25,000 rupees and in default of payment of a fine to six months in prison. Of this amount, 15,000 rupees was to be paid to the victim.


Saryadu had appealed the conviction and sentence to the Bombay High Court, heard by Judge Sarang Kotwal. Saryadu’s case was based only on circumstantial evidence and said expert opinion cannot be the sole basis for convicting a defendant. He said the accused had been missing for three days prior to the incident and the complaint filed by his brother indicated as much. He said he suffered a leg injury before the incident and tried to get some money transferred from his home country but when that didn’t happen he went to his town.


Judge Kotwal noted that forensic odontology is a science and the most common application of forensic odontology is for the purpose of identifying people from their tooth structure. Forensic odontology has established itself as an important and indispensable science in forensic matters and expert evidence through various reports that have been used by courts in the administration of justice, the bench noted. .

Judge Kotwal, while observing the brutality of the case, said: “It was an inhumane act. It was a brutal attack on the victim who was barely five years old. She was seriously assaulted. The sexual assault caused physical trauma and mental trauma. The bench was firmly convinced that the expert testimony could be considered as completely credible evidence.

The court observed that the witnesses cited by Saryadu only stated that he was not to be seen from June 30, 2014. Kotwal.

“It was up to him to explain where he was from June 30 to July 17 when he was brought to Mumbai and in particular he had to explain where he was on the night of the incident, that is- i.e. July 4,” Judge Kotwal said. while rejecting the appeal.

— ENDS —

Previous Trump attorney says Mar-a-Lago docs 'an overdue library book': report
Next Judge orders Oregon State Hospital to release some patients early