Shivangi Prakash-
Published on: July 31, 2021 at 2:53 PM
The Madras High Court recently confirmed a man’s conviction for sexually assaulting a girl aged around 7-9 years old, based solely on the victim’s statement regarding the occurrence.
While confirming the conviction under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offenses (POCSO) Act, Justice P Velmurugan noted that no eyewitness can be expected in such cases. He noted that the evidence of a single witness can be considered unless there are compelling reasons to reject or dismiss it.
The Court stated that conviction is permissible if the single witness’ evidence is cogent, credible, and trustworthy.
The Court found in this case that the victim child had clearly recognised the convict/appellant as the one who had sexually attacked her.
Once it was determined that the victim’s story was clear, the judge overruled some differences mentioned in other evidence by giving preference to the victim’s statement.
The Court said, “The girl is aged about 7 years. She knows what is good things and what is bad things and also she knows who has committed offence. She named the appellant and identified the appellant. Therefore, in cases of this nature, no eye witness can be expected. No corroborative evidence is also expected.”
The Court also addressed allegations of a delay in filing the First Information Report (FIR) in its judgment.
“Since the culprits will take chance of aloofness of the children and try to exploit their innocence and illiteracy, they used to threaten and also commit the offence. Therefore, the children normally will not reveal the incident immediately soon after the occurrence. So after some time, after recovering from the shock and fear and sometimes on the advice of the parents they will come out of the shock and they will reveal the same to the kith and kin who trust on them. Therefore, in this case, delay in filing FIR and delay in sending the FIR, non-examination of another child … with whom she was playing, are not fatal to the case of the prosecution. It would depend upon facts of each case.”
CD Johnson represented the appellant, while TP Savitha, a government attorney, represented the State.
Also Read: Madras HC stays Single Bench Judgment in Actor Vijay’s Entry Tax Case