Testimony of Intellectually Disabled Minor Victim Deemed Credible Despite Procedural Challenges
In a significant ruling, the Delhi High Court has upheld the conviction of Shankar Singh, accused of wrongful confinement and aggravated penetrative sexual assault on an intellectually disabled minor. The court, presided over by Ms. Chandrasekharan Sudha, J., validated the trial court's judgment, confirming the accused's guilt under various sections of the Indian Penal Code and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (PoCSO) Act.
The case, dating back to incidents from 2017, involved the accused wrongfully confining and sexually assaulting an 11-year-old girl with intellectual disabilities in his dwelling. The victim's testimony, despite her communication challenges, was corroborated by other evidence, leading the trial court to render a guilty verdict. The defense argued procedural lapses, including the absence of a special educator during testimony and the lack of fresh injuries on the victim, but these were dismissed by the High Court.
In her judgment, Justice Sudha emphasized that the testimony of the minor, corroborated by gestures and statements recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., was sufficient to sustain the conviction. The court further noted that procedural safeguards under the PoCSO Act were adequately met, and the involvement of a clinical psychologist as an interpreter was deemed appropriate. The absence of fresh injuries did not detract from the credibility of the victim’s testimony, as the sexual assault may not have been completed.
The High Court also rejected the defense's argument of false implication due to a rent dispute, finding no substantial evidence to support such claims. The court underscored the importance of weighing evidence over mere counting, affirming that the quality of testimony, particularly from the victim and her brother, was credible and compelling.
Despite criticisms regarding the trial procedure, specifically the handling of cross-examination questions for the child witness, the High Court found no substantial prejudice against the accused. Consequently, the court dismissed the appeal, maintaining the rigorous imprisonment sentence of 12 years for the accused under the PoCSO Act and additional sentences under the IPC.
Bottom Line :
Conviction under Sections 342, 376(2)(i) and (l) IPC and Section 6 of the PoCSO Act upheld by the High Court. Testimony of minor victim with intellectual disability, corroborated by evidence, deemed reliable despite challenges to procedural compliance and absence of fresh injuries.
Statutory provision(s): Indian Penal Code Sections 342, 376(2)(i), (l), Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 Sections 6, 19(4), 26(3), Indian Evidence Act, 1872 Section 118, Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 415, Code of Criminal Procedure Sections 164, 207, 232.
Shankar Singh v. State of NCT of Delhi, (Delhi) : Law Finder Doc id # 2961479
