Delhi High Court Upholds Conviction In 4-Yr-Old Girl’s Sexual Assault Case
The Delhi Excessive Court docket has upheld the conviction of a 45-year-old man who was accused of sexually assaulting a four-year-old minor lady within the 12 months 2015.
The accused filed an Attraction earlier than the Court docket, difficult the Judgment of the Extra Periods Decide (ASJ), by which he was convicted for the offences underneath Part 6 of the Safety of Youngsters from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act) and Sections 323 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).
A Single Bench of Justice Amit Mahajan noticed, “Minor discrepancies in relation to delay in lodging the FIR are usually not such that forged a doubt over the prosecution’s case. Even in any other case, as rightly famous by the realized ASJ, the delay has been correctly defined not solely within the preliminary grievance made by the complainant but in addition in her testimony, that on 05.08.2015, when she narrated the incidents of the day to her husband, he began quarrelling together with her as an alternative of exhibiting help and requested her to stay silent concerning the incident as it will entice social stigma upon their household. She has clarified in her testimony that she didn’t make a grievance instantly as she was frightened of the social stigma that will be introduced on her household having three daughters.”
The Bench stated that though the Court docket must be delicate whereas contemplating the assertion of a kid sufferer in such instances, the fact of the impressionable nature of kids and the opportunity of them being tutored can’t be ignored.
Advocate Jahanvi Worah appeared for the Appellant/Accused whereas APP Ajay Vikram Singh and Amicus Curiae Deepika Dahiya appeared for the Respondent/State.
Case Background
An FIR was registered based mostly on a Grievance given by the mom of the four-year-old minor sufferer (Complainant), alleging that in August 2015, her daughter had gone to the close by Khatta Wala Park, whereafter she returned dwelling crying. On being requested, the sufferer acknowledged that the Appellant-accused had taken her to the opposite park and bitten her when she began crying. The Complainant seen that she had chew marks on each her cheeks and close to her chest space. The accused was of 45 years of age at the moment and used to ply a rickshaw. He was residing together with his brother on lease in a room on the primary flooring of the sufferer’s home. It was alleged that even on an earlier event, the sufferer had knowledgeable the Complainant that the accused had taken her to his room and locked the identical. Allegedly, he eliminated the sufferer’s garments and his decrease internal put on, inserted his penis within the sufferer’s vagina, and thereafter, he excreted on her.
It was additional alleged that when the Complainant knowledgeable her husband concerning this incident, an altercation broke between them concerning the carelessness on the a part of the Complainant. On this regard, a Grievance was made in opposition to her husband, which led to the registration of FIR. Allegedly, when the accused got here to know that the Complainant’s husband has been arrested, he vacated the premises with out prior discover and fled from there. As per the Complainant, she was unable to make a grievance earlier as a result of social stigma being the mom of three ladies, and prayed for strict motion in opposition to the accused. Consequently, the accused was arrested after which was convicted and sentenced to bear rigorous imprisonment of 12 years together with a positive of Rs. 10,000/-. This was underneath problem earlier than the Excessive Court docket by the accused.
Reasoning
The Excessive Court docket within the above context of the case, remarked, “Within the case at hand, as rightly famous by the realized ASJ, the testimony of the sufferer’s mom is honest and in addition considerably corroborates and helps the model of the sufferer in addition to the medical proof. Aside from what was instructed to her by the sufferer, the identical alone sufficiently means that the appellant sexually assaulted the sufferer and brutally bit her on each her cheeks and her abdomen. A perusal of the MLC and the images of the sufferer which were positioned on file makes it obvious that the defence taken by the appellant doesn’t justify the case at hand.”
The Court docket added that aside from the naked averments of the accused that there was some financial dispute between him and the Complainant, there’s nothing to help his defence that he has been falsely implicated as a result of prior animosity, leaving apart the testimony of witness, who’s the actual brother of the accused and is subsequently an witness.
“Thus, the appellant has failed to boost any credible defence. … the testimony of the sufferer is dependable and couldn’t be eroded in cross-examination and is duly corroborated by the proof. The sufferer has caught by her model all through the trial, mere apprehension of the appellant that the sufferer has been tutored just isn’t sufficient to ignore the sufferer’s proof. The stated issue must be established by exhibiting motive for false implication, which the defence has failed to point out within the current case”, it additional famous.
Furthermore, the Court docket noticed that the testimony of the witness conjures up confidence and the accused has been unable to point out that the model of the sufferer is tutored.
“In such circumstances, the foundational information stand proved by the prosecution by the proof of the sufferer and her mother and father, and the appellant has not been in a position to create any doubt to rebut the presumption underneath Part 29 of the POCSO Act”, it concluded.
Accordingly, the Excessive Court docket dismissed the Attraction and upheld the conviction.
Trigger Title- Pawan Kumar Paswan v. State (NCT of Delhi) [Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:5218]
