-
by Admin
07 May 2024 2:49 AM
Justice Bansal observed, "There have been material improvements in the statements made by the victim," pointing to discrepancies in the description of the assault over time. Initially, the victim, a six-year-old at the time of the incident, stated that the accused had touched her through her clothes, but later statements included more severe allegations of insertion and threats, which were not corroborated by medical evidence.
The court highlighted a "serious lapse in the investigation" due to the prosecution's failure to examine other children present during the incident. This gap in the investigative process raised questions about the credibility of the prosecution's case.
In his ruling, Justice Bansal remarked, "It cannot be disregarded that the victim at the time of the incident was a child of six years and therefore, some leeway has to be provided for minor inconsistencies in her statement." However, he asserted that the contradictions noted were neither minor nor immaterial, ultimately leading to the conclusion that the charge under Section 6 of the POCSO Act was not proved beyond reasonable doubt.
While the delay in filing the FIR was deemed sufficiently explained, the court found that the conviction should be modified. The appellant was thus convicted under Section 10 of the POCSO Act for "aggravated sexual assault" and sentenced to five years of rigorous imprisonment.
The case brings to light the complexities of legal proceedings involving young children and the utmost care that must be taken to ensure that their testimonies are handled with sensitivity and diligence. The ruling also underscores the importance of thorough investigations and the critical role they play in upholding justice.
Date of Decision: 06 November, 2023
SHANTANU VS THE STATE
[gview file="https://lawyerenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/Del-06-Nov-2023-Shantnu-Vs-State.pdf"]
