New Delhi: The Delhi High Court has upheld seven years jail term awarded to a 37-year-old man for sexually assaulting a seven-year-old girl, saying the testimony of the victim inspires confidence and the appellant has been unable to show that the version of the victim was tutored.
The man had moved the High Court challenging an order of the trial court convicting him for sexually assaulting the minor girl and sentencing him to seven-year imprisonment under the provisions of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act.
Mere apprehension of appellant that victim has been tutored is not enough to disregard victim’s evidence: High Court
“While the court has to be sensitive while considering the statement of a child victim in such cases, the reality of the impressionable nature of children and the possibility of them being tutored cannot be ignored. At the same time, when the learned Trial Court has found the victim to be reliable and when the victim has stuck by her version throughout trial, mere apprehension of the appellant that the victim has been tutored is not enough to disregard the victim’s evidence. The said factor has to be established by either showing motive for false implication or through the evidence of the witness herself,” Justice Amit Mahajan said while dismissing the appeal.
There can be no plausible explanation for a grown man to lay naked over a minor girl after disrobing her: High Court
The High Court rejected the defence of the appellant, who argued that he has been implicated in the case due to prior enmity and quarrel between the appellant and the family of the victim, saying that there can be no plausible explanation for a grown man to lay naked over a minor girl after disrobing her of her underwear and jeans.
Quantum of sentence proportional with crime committed by appellant: High Court
The High Court, on the sentence of the appellant, said, “The learned Trial Court has rightly appreciated the seriousness of the offence and taken into account that the victim was merely seven years old at the time of the incident while the appellant was a grown man of 37 years of age. This court finds the quantum of sentence to be proportional with the crime as has been committed by the appellant.”
What was the case of the prosecution?
According to the prosecution, when the minor was going to take a matchbox from the jhuggi of her landlord on December 22, 2016 at around 8PM, the appellant dragged the minor in his room, closed her mouth and took off her jeans. It was alleged that the appellant touched the victim’s vagina and attempted to rape her by laying over her. It was alleged that at that point the victim’s brother came inside the room and asked the appellant as to what he was doing whereafter the appellant ran away from the spot. A First Information Report (FIR) was registered at the Punjabi Bagh police station pursuant to a complaint.
