Ghaziabad: Though she was merely seven years old, the survivor was articulate enough in explaining her ordeal.Over three years after she was sexually assaulted, the minor’s statements to the police, the magistrate and sessions court — having remained consistent all through — resulted in the conviction of her tormentor. A special POCSO court awarded the convict rigorous imprisonment of five years with a fine of Rs 55,000.The additional sessions judge said that it was clearly proved that the accused committed the crime of “aggravated sexual assault by molesting and using criminal force on the minor daughter of the plaintiff”.The court noted that a comprehensive review of the victim’s evidence reveals that her evidence is spontaneous and natural, not tutored.
CJP Jantar Mantar Protest Updates
Consequently, the survivor is considered a credible witness.“The defence has not presented any evidence that suggests the accused was falsely implicated in the case. Therefore, given the facts and circumstances of the case, there is no reasonable basis to disbelieve the victim’s evidence,” the court ruled while pronouncing the accused guilty.“The offences against the accused under Section 354 of the IPC (outraging modesty) and sections 354B (intent to disrobe) and 10 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, are proved beyond reasonable doubt,” ASJ Neeraj Gautam said, awarding three years’ imprisonment and a fine of Rs 5,000 under Section 354 IPC and five years’ imprisonment with a fine of Rs 50,000 under Section 10 of POCSO Act.“Both the sentences will run concurrently and will be adjusted against the time already spent in custody, whereas Rs 40,000 out of the total sum of fine be given to the survivor for her rehabilitation and education,” the order clarified.The matter is linked to an FIR registered with the Tila More police station on the basis of a written complaint filed by a woman resident of Bhopura on Nov 6, 2022, alleging that around 1pm, the accused sexually assaulted her daughter. When she went out of her house to look for her daughter, the man fled after seeing her.Police registered a case under sections 354 and 354B of the IPC and Section 9/10 of POCSO Act, got the statement of the minor recorded before a magistrate and began investigation. A charge sheet was filed on Dec 19 and charges were framed by the court on Feb 27 next year.The accused denied the charges and sought a trial, following which prosecution presented six witnesses, including the minor and her mother.Appearing as PW1, the minor detailed the incident, corroborating the contents of the FIR after answering a few questions to satisfy the court that she was capable of deposing before the court. The minor identified the accused and said that he flashed before her.Defence tried to point to inconsistency in the statement of the plaintiff, appearing as PW2, but the court rejected the arguments.Special public prosecutor Utkarsha Vats said that as the minor remained consistent in her statement, the court considered her as the sterling witness. She was the most important evidence in the case and after declaring her a competent witness after questioning, the court went by her statement.
