Mumbai: Canceling 2019 Belief Under the protection of children from the Sexual Violation Act (Pocso), the Bombay High Court said the court session had provided “undue interests to wild statements” from a four-year-old child without ensuring first.
Children can be a competent witness.
The Mumbai Court session has punished accused of five-year hard detention in 2019.
He is one of the two accused in this case As long as he was able to understand the questions put into him and were able to provide rational answers.
“But in this case, the child is almost four years old and a gentle age, and” it is obligatory “to the judge to ensure first whether children can give birth as a competent witness, which has not been carried out by the trial judge, the High Court added.
The prosecution case was that the defendant, who was hired to paint the room, made the child sit on his lap.
Allegedly that at 9:30 a.m., he then touched his personal part and that another man had slapped him.
The man has been punished under 10 Pocso because of sexual violence that is exacerbated, where the minimum sentence is five years.
The two defendants begged innocently.
The child, who does not have cognitive skills to recall and tell the alleged sexual abuse by a painter worker, later in a cross-examination by defense lawyer also said he was a deposit as he was told by his mother, observing the justice of Anuja Prabhudessi while relieving men in the case of 2017.
prosecution is based on children’s testimony.
“Confidence can be based on the testimony of the only child witness who gives a competent witness to depend on the facts and is a reliable witness,” said HC.
Observing that the court court has “failed to evaluate the competence of” children as witnesses, HC examined the proof to ascertain whether deposition is reliable.
HC judgment noted that the child “did not try to hide the truth ‘and the tenor of the answer during the trial showed that he did not have the intellectual and maturity capacity to understand the nature of the question and to give a rational answer, therefore he” could not be considered a competent witness.
“In addition, there was no confirmation of the identification of the defendant, HC noted, because the date of work painting was a day after alleged crime, the room owner said.
HC stated that the court court had been “very wrong” in giving his guilty verdict.
The man with a guarantee during the appeal.