Chandigarh: The Punjab High Court and Haryana have stated that the acceptance of documents and probative values is different.
The High Court made this clear while freeing a boy in a rape case after rejecting the date of birth of the victim mentioned in the school record.
HC relies on a statement that confirms that Survivor’s father has deliberately recorded his age as two years lower than the actual age.
“We found that there were no probative values that could be attached to the certificate to leave school.
Therefore, we are the view that the belief in the defendant / applicant as made by the court court studied and the sentences imposed cannot be legally maintained.
Therefore, therefore, We set aside the same, freeing allegations / applicants …
let the applicant released thus, if it is not needed in another case, “a division bench, consisting of justice Ajay Tewari and Judge Pankaj Jain ruled.
The bench allowed the appeal filed by Naveen against the order of confidence on July 16, 2019, and the order of sentences on July 18, 2019, was passed by additional district judges, Palwal.
He was punished for 20 years in prison in connection with the FIR 351 on May 21, 2018, registered for kidnapping and other parts of the protection of children from the Sexual Act, 2012 (Pocso) at the Palwal conscious police station.
The complainant stated that on the previous occasion, he had argued with the parents of the applicant, who had convinced him that the applicant would improve his way.
However, on the date in question, the boy lured his daughter and raped him, the man added his complaint.
The two main witnesses, including those who survived and his father, changed hostility.
Both claim that there is no rape that occurs and that the girl is not an underage child.
His father claimed that he had reduced his daughter’s age at that time entering school.
The trial court, however, relied on medical evidence, which showed the footsteps of the Petitioner’s cement on the safe underwear and argued that the oral version of the girl’s age could not be preferred than the school record and its consequences, the appeal was punished and punished for 20 years in prison.
Advocate Sunil Sihag, advice for the applicant, especially argue about the findings of age.
Sihag argued that the age recognized reflected in school records was not based on evidence such as birth certificates and had been included in the Father’s statement.
He argued that in his testimony, the girl firmly stated that her daughter was actually 19 years old and she deliberately made her age at the time of her confession to school and thus, the school record had lost the problem of value.
The applicant was also an underage child at the time but was certified to try as an adult.
However, advice for the country, however, argues that it is its submission that from the date of birth was included many years ago, it must be suspected that the same thing is true and the evidence given when the witnesses was won, must be discarded.
After checking the facts, HC had ordered the release of the defendant.
(The identity of the victim has not been disclosed to protect his privacy in accordance with the direction of the Supreme Court about cases related to sexual violence)
‘Docu powers differ from probative values’
