New Delhi: Overturning the trial court verdict of acquittal, the Delhi High Court Friday convicted a man for the rape of a minor girl in a male public toilet in 2010 while she was returning from school and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for ten years. A bench of Justices Mukta Gupta and Mini Pushkarna also directed the accused to pay a compensation of Rs 50,000 to the victim and said that the trial court order was wholly unsustainable as the prosecution has established its case against the accused beyond a reasonable doubt.
The high court noted that the trial court based its decision primarily on the contradictions in the deposition of the victim and opined that it committed a grave error in holding the victim as a tutored witness. The high court stated that the deposition of the victim was reliable and trustworthy and there was no reason to discredit it merely on the basis of a minor contradiction between her deposition and some other witnesses.
Considering the evidence and other documents on record, we find that the deposition of the victim is natural, straightforward, and cogent. The victim has fully supported the prosecution case. The contradictions in the deposition of the witnesses are minor in nature, which cannot be said to adversely affect the prosecution case.
"Her version is duly corroborated by the testimonies of PW9, an independent person who witnessed the victim in the male toilet in such a condition, and also by her Aunt. Thus, the prosecution has established its case against the accused beyond a reasonable doubt, said the high court. We hold the judgement of the sessions court wholly unsustainable in law.
The judgment of the Sessions Court acquitting the accused is set aside. Consequently, the respondent is held guilty of and is convicted for the offense punishable under Section 376 IPC, the high court order held. In its order, the high court also said that the trial court erred in holding that there was no explanation for the seven days in reporting the matter and not getting the victim medically examined.
Recording that the victim had lost her mother at a very young age and her father was also missing and thus stayed with her aunt, the high court added, that the victim belonged to a very poor family and her aunt met the two ends by working as a labourer. In these circumstances, the aunt of the victim, cannot be expected to know the importance of reporting such matters immediately. Even otherwise, considering the thought process prevailing in society in general, there is a reluctance to report such incidents of rape. Thus, delay in lodging the FIR cannot be considered as a factor to doubt the prosecution case in any manner. (PTI)
