Introduction

A stepfather was found guilty in 2015 of sexually abusing and raping his young daughter in 2014, but the Delhi High Court cleared him of any guilt. A division bench consisting of Justices Suresh Kumar Kait and Manoj Jain noted that the victim’s testimony did not invoke much confidence and that there were several reasons to give the convict the benefit of the doubt. The victim’s cross-examination revealed, according to the bench, that she had previously testified at the request of her grandmother, who was tired of the stepfather’s alcoholism.

Facts of the case

The appellant, S’s stepfather, was found guilty and given a sentence for raping and assaulting her sexually. When ‘S’ first told the police about the attack, she claimed that the suspect had sexually assaulted her at their Mubarakpur home. With the help of her maternal grandmother and cousin, ‘S’ eventually reported the incident despite threats, which resulted in the filing of a police report and her being examined medically.

‘S’ restated her claims in her Section 164 Cr.P.C. statement during the trial. The Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offenses Act, 2012 (POCSO Act) contained pertinent sections that were used to charge the accused. The trial court found that ‘S’s testimony was consistent and trustworthy despite some witnesses becoming hostile, which led to the appellant’s conviction and imprisonment.

Case of the Appellant

The conviction was appealed on several grounds, such as the absence of testimony from important witnesses, the accused’s alcoholism, and purported flaws in the trial procedure. Appellant cross-examined ‘S’ in an attempt to obtain more evidence. The Court allowed the cross-examination because it saw flaws in the trial and wanted to ensure that justice was done.

Under cross-examination, ‘S’ asserted that her previous testimony was shaped by her grandmother’s wish to curb the accused’s alcohol consumption. ‘S’s mother, grandmother, and cousin were among the other witnesses who refuted S’s testimony. The Court found several reasons to doubt the prosecution’s case, including ‘S’s frequent visits to the accused in jail following the alleged assault, despite DNA evidence and other considerations.

Court’s Observation

A child witness’s testimony in a sexual assault case may be crucial to the prosecution’s case, but it cannot be swayed by tutoring. Young witnesses are easily swayed and could embellish if given guidance. Courts should therefore look for supporting documentation, particularly in cases where testimony demonstrates tutoring. If it is discovered that the testimony of child witnesses was influenced by tutoring, it is risky to depend only on them because they lack maturity and are capable of exaggerating to any degree.

The court in this instance discovered several grounds for skepticism regarding ‘S’s testimony. Under cross-examination, ‘S’ acknowledged that her grandmother’s wish to put an end to the accused’s alcoholism had affected her earlier deposition. Moreover, important witnesses such as ‘S’s mother, grandmother, and cousin did not support the prosecution’s case. The prosecution was not helped by the DNA report either. Furthermore, ‘S’ visited the accused in jail even after accusing him of sexual assault; the prosecution did not provide an explanation for this. Taking into account these elements, the court gave the accused the benefit of the doubt, indicating a lack of confidence in ‘S’s testimony and a lack of evidence from other witnesses.

Court’s Decision

The Court underlined how crucial it is to guarantee impartial trials and shield young witnesses from influence or tutoring. Ultimately, the Court cleared the appellant of all charges and released him right away because of questions raised about ‘S’s testimony and the absence of evidence from other witnesses.

The appeal was granted, and it was mandated that the appellant receive a certified copy of the ruling via the relevant jail superintendent.

-By Anaida Khan Pursuing 4th year of BALLB (Hons.) from Dharmashashtra National Law University, Jabalpur