Mumbai: While setting aside confidence in May 2019 under the protection of children from the Sexual Act (Pocso), the Bombay High Court noted a five-year-old victim stating that his parents had told him how to give a statement against the defendant.
HC said the child “by his own acceptance was a witness proposed and therefore there was no implicit dependence that could be placed in the proof”.
The defendant has appealed his beliefs and the concurrent seven-year prison sentence for rape under Section 376 of IPC and Part 4 and 8 Pocso for sexual violence and three years for sexual harassment under Section 354-A allegedly carried out in 2017.
Proof of Med Putting aside rape, mother’s behavior makes doubts: HCKE is accused of being on the floor in the girl’s house.
HC noted the child’s mother acknowledged the “quarrel” between him and who was accused of convict “for the water leakage of the toilet”.
The court said, “Therefore, the possibility of fake implications cannot be ruled out.” Special trial courts have punished the defendant mostly based on the testimony of children and his mother.
After hearing his appeal, Justice Anuja Prabhudessi from HC observed the medical opinion by the doctor who examined the child showed “everything normal” and there was no injury.
“Medical evidence ruled out the possibility …
and did not support the accusations of rape” under the IPC or penetrative sexual attack as defined in Section 3 Pocso Law 2012, can be punished under Section 4.
“It is known that a child witness, for the reason that age Gently, is a supple witness, “said HC’s assessment, added,” He agreed with tutoring and persuasion and often vulnerable to telling imaginative and excessive stories.
Therefore, evidence of child witnesses needs to be examined carefully and carefully …
he admitted that his parents had told him how protracted in front of the court, “he said.
Citing other differences and “improvement” in evidence, HC said the court court did not consider “material negligence and difference”.
HC said mother’s behavior was not carrying a child to a doctor even though it was allegedly noticing the injury and claimed he complained about passing reddish urine, “it was unnatural and made doubts about the truth and the credibility of the entire version of the prosecution”.