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 child, who did not have cognitive skills to remember, recalled, and told the alleged sexual abuse by a painter worker, later in a cross examination by defense lawyer also said he was a deposit as his mother said, observing Justice Anuja Prabhudesai while freeing the man who was punished In the case of 2017.
The prosecution case is based on the child’s testimony.
“Confidence can be based on the testimony of the only witness of children who give competent witnesses to depend on the facts and is a reliable witness,” said HC.
The man has been punished under the 10 Pocso because of sexual violence that is exacerbated, where punishment The minimum is five years in the Republic of Indonesia.
The two defendants begged them innocent.
Observing that trial courts have “failed to evaluate the competence of ” children as witnesses, HC examined the proof to ascertain whether the deposition was 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 in this case, HC was recorded as the date of work painting was the day after the alleged crime, the room owner said.