The Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that the testimony of a minor victim in sexual assault or molestation cases comes with an “in-built guarantee of truth” as such witnesses cannot spare an accused and implicate an innocent person.
A single judge bench of Justice Prem Narayan Singh dismissed an appeal filed by a man, Nageshwar, against the trial court’s order of three years’ jail term for offences under Sections 7/8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act.
According to the prosecution, the victim, a Class 9 student was returning from home when the accused caught her hand with “bad intention and pulled her clothes”.
In his appeal, the convict contended that the age of the girl was not properly considered and no sexual assault instincts on his part could be established by the prosecution. He also claimed some old animosity was the reason for his implication.
The court, however, noted as per the scholar register, the date of birth of the girl was recorded as March 06, 2006, and therefore, at the time of incident, that is, November 15, 2020, she was less than 15 years of age.
The bench also referred to the SC’s judgment in case of ‘Takdir Samsuddin Sheikh vs. State of Gujrat and another’ (2012) and ‘Pundappa Yankappa Pujari v. State of Karnataka, (2014) on the testimony of the victim.
“Virtually, the testimony of prosecutrix should be regarded as an injured witness of the case and it is well settled that criminal jurisprudence attaches great weightage to the evidence of a person injured in the incidence. Such a testimony comes with an in-built guarantee of truth, especially when it is a case of molestation or sexual assault. Such type of witness cannot spare the actual culprit in order to foist an innocent person,” the bench said.
With regard to demurrer of sexual intent, the bench said, “At the time of the incident, the appellant was 22 years old person. He has pulled the clothes of the prosecutrix and put his hand on her shoulder. This conduct clearly signified the sexual instinct of the appellant.”
Citing Section 30(1) of POCSO Act, the bench said a culpable mental stage on the part of the accused, shall be presumed by the special court in such type of offences.
So far as the claim of previous animosity was concerned, the court said the evidence available on record evinced the facts that mere existence of a previous dispute will not demolish the case of prosecution, if it is otherwise able to prove its case on merits.
The court affirmed the trial court’s order, finding the criminal appeal as without merit.
“So far. as the sentencing part is concerned, this case is related to sexual offence and looking at the age of the appellant and age of prosecutrix, no leniency is required in the circumstances of the case,” the bench said.
Section 8 of the POCSO Act mandated the punishment should not be less than three years, so it does not call for any interference, it said.
Comments
0 comment