A special Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) court in Ghaziabad on Monday sentenced a man to 20 years of rigorous imprisonment and imposed a fine of Rs 1 lakh for sexually assaulting his minor neighbour in Modinagar three years ago. The convict had lured the child onto his bicycle under the pretext of a quick trip to the market to buy a TV remote, but instead took her to an isolated location and raped her.
Court's Decision and Evidence
Additional Sessions Judge Neeraj Gautam relied heavily on the survivor's testimony, describing her as a sterling witness, along with medical reports to convict the accused. The court determined that the survivor was under 12 years of age at the time of the offence and sentenced the convict under Section 6 of the POCSO Act for aggravated penetrative sexual assault. Out of the Rs 1 lakh fine imposed, Rs 80,000 is to be paid to the survivor for her treatment and rehabilitation.
Case Background
The First Information Report (FIR) was registered at Modinagar police station on July 7, 2023, after the survivor's mother reported that her daughter had been picked up in the afternoon by a neighbour, taken to a nearby ruin, and raped. A chargesheet was filed on August 9, and charges were framed on October 12 of the same year.
Witnesses and Testimonies
The prosecution examined six witnesses, including the survivor's mother, the survivor herself, and the doctor who conducted the medico-legal examination. The defence examined two witnesses, one of whom admitted to giving false evidence. Special Public Prosecutor Utkarsh Vats stated that the survivor's account was reliable and consistent, with no contradiction between her statement recorded under Section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) and her deposition before the court. He noted that her evidence was corroborated by the testimony of the plaintiff and the investigating officer.
The examining doctor, Sonia Sehgal, testified that the survivor had an abrasion on her inner thigh and that the medical examination indicated vaginal intercourse, with redness and swelling in the internal parts.
Defence Argument and Court's Rejection
The defence contended that the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) report did not establish a match between the male-specific allele recovered from the survivor and the accused, and argued that the accused deserved the benefit of doubt. The court rejected this argument. Judge Gautam held that, notwithstanding the FSL report's failure to match the accused's DNA, the survivor's credible testimony and corroborating medical evidence were sufficient to establish guilt beyond any doubt. Citing a Supreme Court precedent on child witnesses, the court found that the defence had failed to show any contradiction in the survivor's statements.
