In this case, Kishore v State An appeal was filed by the defendant (convict) to overturn the impugned judgement of conviction dated 03-02-2020 and order of sentence dated 20-02-2020 convicting the defendant under Sections 10 and 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 for offences under Sections 454 and 506(II) of the Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).
When appellant Kishore Kumar and another youngster arrived at the victim’s home with a threat to force her son, who was about 7 years old, to open the door, the victim’s complainant’s mother was not home. The victim was instructed to sit in a corner when the appellant entered the home, where they engaged in unnatural sex in full view of the child victim. Furthermore, it is claimed that Kishore Kumar, the appellant, repeated the same crime a short while afterwards. In addition to touching the victim’s private areas, the appellant exposed his own. The appellant was found guilty of an offence covered by Section 454 of the IPC and given a sentence of three years of rigorous imprisonment as well as a fine. For violating both Section 12 of the POCSO Act and Section 506(II) of the IPC, he received comparable terms. For a violation of Section 10 of the POCSO Act, he was given a five-year sentence of harsh imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2500.
Analysis of Court Order
As the Trial Court correctly held, the testimony of the victim alone is sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused, and minor contradictions or insignificant discrepancies in the statement of a child victim should not be a basis for tossing out an otherwise solid prosecution case, the single judge bench of the Delhi High Court, led by Justice Jasmeet Singh, upholds the impugned conviction.
The Court noted that there is a presumption of guilt against the accused under section 29 of the POCSO Act. Only the fundamental information revealing the accused’s involvement in the crime must be laid forward by the prosecution. The accused is then required to disprove the assumption of guilt after the same has been done. As a result, in the present case, the 7-year-old victim’s story did not seem to have been created or tutored, and he constantly characterised the incident when the accused acted inappropriately with another person in front of him.
The court found that the kid victim’s statement was of the highest calibre. The prosecution’s cumulative evidence establishes the fundamental facts that reveal the commission of the crime, and this Court sees no reason to doubt the child victim’s testimony. The testimony, therefore gives rise to confidence. However, the slight discrepancies, improvements, and contradictions in the child victim’s testimony, such as her inability to recall the appellant’s name or the precise day, week, or year of the assault, do not call into question the prosecution’s version of events. Since the victim’s testimony was unambiguous, trustworthy, and credible, the Court did not intervene in the contested decision. As a result, the appellant’s claims that the victim was tutored or that the partner with whom the sexual act was committed was never identified again lose their significance.