New Delhi, Nov 14 The Supreme Court has upheld the conviction of a man for sexually assaulting a four-year-old girl under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act.
A Bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and N.V. Anjaria affirmed the concurrent findings of the trial court and the Chhattisgarh High Court, holding that the evidence on record “established the commission of offence” and warranted no interference.
“The appreciation of evidence of the trial court and consideration thereof by the High Court could be said to be eminently legal and proper, warranting no interference by this Court,” observed the Justice Kumar-led Bench.
However, taking note of the time already served, the apex court modified the sentence “to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 6 years, instead”. As per the prosecution, the child’s mother discovered the appellant-accused, Dinesh Kumar Jaldhari, “wearing half shorts and sitting near the legs of her minor daughter” inside their home, where the four-year-old was found crying with her clothes displaced and complaining of pain in her private parts.
Upholding the findings of the courts below, the Justice Kumar-led Bench relied on the testimony of the parents, observing that “there is no good reason not to disbelieve the details revealed and the narration given about the incident by PW-3 – mother of the victim”.
The Supreme Court also noted the trauma exhibited by the child during her deposition before the trial court, observing that she became visibly distressed and refused to even look at the accused once his mask was removed. “The fact that the victim was in a frightened state upon seeing the accused is a pointer in itself,” the judgment said, adding that the entire sequence was “telltale” of the assault’s psychological impact on the four-year-old.
Rejecting the appellant’s argument that the absence of external injuries weakened the prosecution's case, the Justice Kumar-led Bench reaffirmed that consistent and cogent ocular evidence must prevail. The apex court reiterated, “the medical evidence will take a backseat and even if it does not corroborate with the ocular evidence, where the ocular evidence is consistent and cogent, the latter would be allowed to prevail”.
The Supreme Court concluded that the conviction under Sections 9(m) and 10 of the POCSO Act was fully justified. However, noting that the appellant had already undergone “about 4 years and 5 months” of imprisonment, the Justice Kumar-led Bench reduced the sentence from seven to six years while not interfering with the fine and default sentence.
Disclaimer: This post has been auto-published from an agency feed without any modifications to the text and has not been reviewed by an editor