Minor rape victim's testimony prompts Delhi High Court to uphold convict's 10-year jail term

A man’s 10-year jail term for raping his 5-year-old relative seven years ago has been upheld by the Delhi High Court, which said that the survivor’s “consistent” testimony was sufficient to prove the crime against him [RN v. State]..Justice Mukta Gupta while acting on the convict’s appeal against trial court’s 2018 conviction judgment, said that though the minor was of an “impressionable age” she had narrated her ordeal to her mother soon after the incident."Her statements are consistent and sufficient to prove the offence alleged against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt," the Court observed..The Court while dismissing the appeal, also noted that the fact that the girl was sexually assaulted had been corroborated by the medical evidence; besides she was cross-examined at length before the trial court..“Her statement to the mother; (statement) in the MLC (medico-legal case); statement recorded under Section 164 CrPC (Code of Criminal Procedure) and before the Court, are consistent and sufficient to prove the offence alleged against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt,” highlighted the Court..The man was convicted under Section 6 (punishment for aggravated penetrative sexual assault) of the Protection of Children Against Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act. The alleged incident took place at the house of the survivor in August, 2014..The defence counsel contended that given the age of the survivor, she had been tutored to testify against the convict. Besides, it was stated, that though the MLC showed injuries, it could not be connected to his client. Additionally, he contended that no recovery of any material was made from his client and no public witnesses were present either at the time of seizure of material from the alleged crime scene or arrest..The Court, however, observed that the MLC showed injuries, indicating sexual assault on the minor girl. “To constitute an offence punishable under Section 376 (rape) IPC (Indian Penal Code) and Section 6 of the POCSO Act, penetration is sufficient and it is not necessary that semen needs to be essentially present,” the Court observed..The Court also held that the defense counsel’s submission of no public witnesses being present at the time of recovery deserved to be rejected for the reason that no recovery was made from convict but parents of the survivor..“The explanation of the appellant in his statement recorded under Section 313 CrPC is that he has been falsely implicated. However, neither any defence evidence has been led nor anything elicited to show as to why the appellant has been falsely implicated,” the verdict underlined..Referring to the child’s statement and her medical status at the time of the crime, this Court held that the prosecution had proved its case beyond reasonable doubt..“The sentence of rigorous imprisonment for 10 years awarded to the appellant is the minimum sentence prescribed for the offence punishable under Section 6 of the POCSO Act. Thus, this Court finds no error in the impugned judgment of conviction and order on sentence. Appeal is dismissed,” it added..Advocate Nitish Chaudhary represented the convict and Additional Public Prosecutor Tarang Srivastava appeared for the State..[Read Order]