Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Vibhu Bakhru, J.
Amarjeet - Appellant
Versus
State - Respondent
Crl.A. 580 of 2016
Decided On : 10-12-2019
Testimonies from minor victims in sexual assault cases are credible if consistent and unambiguous, warranting conviction even in absence of physical evidence.
Headnote:(A) Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 - Section 6 - Conviction for aggravated sexual assault - Appellant sentenced to ten years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.10,000/- - No medical evidence of injury does not negate strong testimonies of minor victim and witness regarding sexual assault. (Paras 2, 5, 20, 24)
(B) Standards of Evidence in Child Sexual Assault Cases - Testimonies of minor victims must be evaluated with caution, yet can be deemed credible if consistent and unambiguous. Court upheld trial court’s finding of guilt based on strong evidence despite defendant's claim of contradictions. (Paras 21, 22, 23)
Facts of the case:
The appellant was convicted under POCSO after the mother of the child victim reported sexual assault by the appellant, her husband, on his stepdaughter. Witnesses included the child victim and a neighbor who intervened during the assault. (Para 2)
Findings of Court:
The testimonies of the victim and the eyewitness were found credible and corroborated the charge against the appellant, justifying the trial court's decision. (Paras 20, 24)
Issues: The court addressed whether the evidence presented was sufficient to support the conviction despite the absence of physical injuries. (Para 5)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that testimonies from minor victims can be sufficient for conviction, especially when they are consistent and credible, countering claims of inconsistency raised by the appellant. (Paras 19, 24)
Result: Appeal dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. background of case and conviction details (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. appellant's legal arguments against conviction (Para 5) |
| 3. evidence presented during trial (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 4. court's evaluation of testimonies and contradictions (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21) |
| 5. court's validation of victim testimony and dismissal of appeal (Para 22 , 23 , 24) |
| 6. final judgment and order (Para 25) |
JUDGMENT
Vibhu Bakhru, J. The appellant has filed the present appeal impugning a judgment dated 08.04.2016 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, North West 01, Rohini District Courts, Delhi, whereby the appellant was convicted for an offence under Section 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO). The appellant also impugns the order on sentence dated 18.04.2016, whereby he was sentenced to ten years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.10,000/- for committing an offence under Section 6 of the POCSO. The appellant was also directed to serve simple imprisonment for a further period of six months, if he defaulted in the payment of the said fine.
2. The impugned judgment was rendered in connection with a case arising from FIR No. 478/14, under Section 6 of the POCSO and Section 376(2)(f) of the IPC, registered with P.S. Aman Vihar, on 13.05.2014. The said FIR was registered at the instance of the mother of the child victim. She stated that after the death of her first husband Kamal, she had married the appellant Amarjeet (accused). The victim was born from her earlier wedlock. She alleged that the accused had sexually assaulted the victim.
3. She alleged that on 13.05.2013, she had been working at Panni Godown and on that day, at about 3.30 pm, one neighboring lady, whom the people used to call `nani', came there and informed her that she had saved the child victim from appellant, who was about to commit sexual assault upon her. Thereafter, she along with nani returned home, where the child victim narrated the entire incident to her. By that time, the appellant had run away from there. Thereafter, she took the child victim to the concerned PS and requested that legal action be taken against the appellant.
4. In order to establish its case, the prosecution examined thirteen witnesses. The Trial Court had evaluated the evidence available and had found the appellant guilty of the offence for which he was charged.
5. The appellant has challenged the impugned judgment, inter alia, on the ground that the medical examination of the victim had revealed that the hymen of the victim was intact and also there was no external injury. There were contradictions in the testimonies of the child victim (PW-6) and the witness, Majida (nani) who deposed as PW-9. The appellant further contends that there is a contradiction in the statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 of the CrPC and the deposition made before the court. The appellant states that the Trial court erred in placing reliance on the testimony of the child victim since the victim is a minor and could be easily tutored. The appellant further contends that non-examination of the mother of the victim (the complainant) also raises doubts as to the allegations made by her. There was also no proof that witness Majida was on leave on the day of the incident. It is also contended that PW-9 (Majida) had also confirmed that the mother of the victim and the appellant did not have a cordial relationship; and, this according to the appellant, raises doubts as to the case set up by the prosecution.
Evidence.
6. Before proceeding further, it is relevant to briefly examine the evidence led by various witnesses.
7. Dr. Rachita, Sr Gyne, SGM Hospital Mangalpuri Delhi, who deposed as PW-5, had conducted the medical examination of the child victim. In her examination in chief, she deposed that the hymen of the victim was found intact and that no external injury was seen on the exposed part of the body.
8. The child victim in he
