Adult sexual predators should not be given leeway through micro-analysis of child victims’ testimony: Sikkim High Court

The Sikkim High Court recently set aside the judgment of a Trial Court, acquitting a person charged under Sections 9(m) and 9(n) of the POCSO Act and Section 354 of the IPC, on the grounds that the Trial Court had erred in acquitting the suspect despite the unshakable evidence of the minor victim and her evidence being completely reliable.

The single judge bench of Judge Meenakshi Madan Rai observed:

“Adult sexual predators should not be treated with leniency or extended misplaced sympathy; they should be given the punishment their actions deserve and they should not be given leeway by the Learned Trial Court through micro-analysis of time and place of the incident.”

While noting that the evidence of the child does not indicate penetrative sexual assault, the Court relied on Section 222(2) of the CrPC and convicted the accused respondent for the offense under Section 7, punishable under Section 8 of the POCSO Act.

The Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State Appellant submitted that the trial court, without any basis or enumeration of reasons for its opinion, held that the child could have been tutored, but it had not examined and held that her statement under Section 164 CrPC and her statement before the Court corroborated each other and had passed cross-examination.

It was further submitted that PW-2 and PW-3 had corroborated the victim’s statement regarding the occurrence of the incident.

On the other hand, the senior counsel appearing on behalf of the accused-respondent submitted that there were consistent anomalies in the prosecution case. It was submitted that according to PW-1, the incident took place after she returned from school and was playing with her younger brother in the “courtyard” of their house. However, contrary to the evidence of PW-1, the victim’s mother (PW-3) has stated that when she reached her ‘house’, she saw the accused holding her victim’s daughter on her lap and when she saw her , the suspect-respondent left. her child on the ground and left her house. When the suspect saw her, he left the victim’s child on the ground and left her home.

Thus, it was argued that the scene of the incident is unidentified and mired in confusing evidence. It was also alleged that the prosecution, in an attempt to explain the delay in filing the FIR, has insinuated that the accused-respondent came to the victim’s house with his family in an attempt to reconcile the matter, but there is no evidence to support such an accusation.

The Court observed that the Supreme Court will be slow to interfere with appeals against acquittals, but yet it cannot remain a mute spectator when, on analyzing the evidence before it, it concludes that there has been a travesty of justice.

The Court observed that PW-1, who is a victim of sexual assault by a predator aged 50 years, has been consistent in her evidence regarding the sexual assault committed against her.

“It is pertinent to mention that her statement under Section 164 of the Cr.PC, Exbt-1, was recorded on December 28, 2018 and her evidence before the Court was recorded on December 10, 2019. Notwithstanding the passage of time for almost a year, she has been consistent and unwavering about the details of the sexual assault and no contradictions have been found in her statements,” the Court said.

The Court further observed that the inability of the victim to specify the date of the incident, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, cannot be a ground for dismissing the prosecution case.

“Minor contradictions that arise during recording of evidence and translation from Nepali vernacular to English actually require the judicial officer to be vigilant in the courtroom when such evidence is being displayed, translated and recorded, to avoid discrepancies. “Nonetheless, these anomalies do not go to the heart of the sexual assault case as the scene of occurrence described by the prosecution witnesses is not so diverse as to lead to total disbelief in the prosecution case,” the report said.

The Court observed that after examining the victim’s statement before the court and her statement under Section 164 of the CrPC, the statements corroborate each other, are convincing, consistent and steadfast and there is no reason to conclude that crime was a fabrication of the victim. imagination or conjured up by her, nor is there evidence that she was taught by anyone.

Thus, the Court held that the Trial Court erred in acquitting the defendant of the crimes with which he was accused, despite the child victim’s unshakable evidence in the record, and her sole testimony is sufficient to convict the defendant , as her evidence is completely reliable.

“It may be reiterated here that a purposive interpretation must be given to the POCSO Act and the specific mandate of Section 29 of the POCSO Act must be given due consideration. Cases involving sexual offenses against minors should be treated with sensitivity and the victim’s case should be given due consideration in terms of Section 29 of the POCSO Act where the statement is clearly reliable, especially where the accused has failed to to demonstrate a lack of culpable spirit. as required under Section 30 of the POCSO Act,” the Court observed.

Accordingly, the Court set aside the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the Trial Court under the aforesaid provisions of the POCSO Act and the IPC.

The Court further observed that although the evidence of the child does not indicate penetrative sexual assault, the offense committed by the accused-respondent would be an offense under Section 7 of the POCSO Act.

Therefore, the Court relied on Section 222(2) of the CrPC and convicted the accused-respondent under Section 7, punishable under Section 8 of the POCSO Act.

Case Title: State of Sikkim v. Lall Bahadur Rai

Case number: Crl.A. No. 14 of 2024

Click here to read/download the order