Since a four-year-old girl could not be expected to provide convincing evidence regarding her sexual abuse, the Madras High Court overturned a lower court order acquitting a schoolteacher in Puducherry accused of a crime on the minor and awarded him 10 years in strict prison terms and also imposed a fine on him. 10,000 rupees. Judge B. Filmorogan recently ordered the conviction after he overturned an order from the lower court, which had acquitted Erlam Pereira.
Earlier, Puducherry Attorney General De Bharata Chakravarthy (since promoted to Supreme Court Justice and is expected to take office on October 20) said the victim was a child, and was only about four years old at the time of the incident in March 2018, no It can be talked about at all stages in parrot version and cannot be expected to remember all the incidents and actions of the accused.
The prosecution noted that she might forget something and that the mother, who was told by the victim about the sexual assault committed by the accused, might remember those actions.
“Therefore, for the aforementioned reason, we cannot dispose of the evidence of the child victim, who was in fact sexually assaulted by the accused,” he added.
A lower court judge, on October 6, 2020, acquitted the accused in custody under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offenses Act (POCSO), on the grounds that the evidence of the child victim’s parents was inconsistent and convincing. Nor did the credible and medical evidence support the prosecution’s case.
The judge of the lower court came to the conclusion that, on the basis of their evidence, no conviction could be registered against the accused and that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts.
Judge Filmorogan overruled the trial judge’s order, holding that the lower court’s finding was completely wrong. In cases of aggravated sexual abuse of a child, which was only studying the UKG at the time, supporting medical evidence was not always a necessity, and only victim evidence would be sufficient to register a conviction.
The judge dismissed the allegation that the mother had falsely implicated the accused in the case due to past enmity, and said that without strong reason, no mother would go so far as to make such allegations of her child’s use.
The judge dismissed another claim that there was a significant delay in filing the complaint, saying that no mother would rush to the police station immediately after the accident.
“It is normal for the mother to think about the future of the child and the reputation of the family. In such cases, the delay was not fatal to the prosecution’s case. As previously mentioned, since the child victim was only four years old, one cannot expect her to speak up everything Even if she didn’t understand what was happening to her.”
“When she felt pain in her genitals, she complained the same to her mother and the mother explained the same to the police. In this case there was no eyewitness. She also mentioned that the accused kept her in his lap and inserted his fingers into her genitals. In such cases, the mere delay In submitting the FIR was not fatal to the prosecution case and also the cause of the delay, although not specifically submitted, one cannot expect the family members of the child victim to rush to the police immediately after the accident”, the court noted.
The trial judge failed to consider the facts that the victim was only four years old and might not know what was happening to her and if the accused’s act was good or bad and in this case the court could not expect the child victim to have spoken of it happening in all Stages in parrot version.
Also, the courts of first instance, at times not eager to reason, searched for evidence beyond all reasonable doubt and took advantage of the flaw in the investigation, and gave the benefit of the doubt to the accused.
But in such cases we cannot give much importance to the technical basis of the proof. In this case, the victim is an infant, under five years of age, who is not in a position to speak publicly about charges of crimes or atrocities. Under the circumstances, the mother spoke and no confirmation could be expected.”
He said the offender could not escape the law, and he was sentenced to death.