When upholding a conviction in a POCSO case, a single judge bench of the Bombay High Court recently noted that a kid who is 3.5 years old cannot be expected to provide a detailed description of her private parts.
In her statement recorded under Section 164, the 3.5-year-old child firmly said that she was touched at the “potty spot,” despite the fact that she hasn’t even been exposed to her own organs. She made it quite obvious during her deposition before the court that someone stuck a finger in her private area, which caused a lot of blood to oozing out. Due to her innocence and simplicity, which had not yet been tarnished by trivial matters, she was undoubtedly in no position to accurately describe the experience, the court, which was presided over by Judge Bharati Dangre, said.
A motion was made in opposition to the judgment of a special court condemning the defendant under Section 6 of the POCSO Act (penetrative sexual assault) and Section 376 of the Indian Criminal Code (rape).
While the girl could not be shielded from the sexual offense, Judge Dangre noted that the legal system had worked in her favor.
Despite the fact that the young girl was unable to be protected from the sexual assault that was perpetrated against her, the bench stated, “The wheels of justice have been turned to her by convicting the appellant for the wrong that he has done, resulting into a trauma that has gone unspoken but may have long-lasting effects upon her and by imposing adequate sentence.
The issue related to an occurrence that took place while the youngster was playing with her brothers and her mother was nearby as well. She was taken inside the residence by the defendant, who poked his finger within her intimate areas, causing her to bleed. The little girl screamed in anguish and suffering, ran to her mother, went to the bathroom, but was unable to pee. She then groped her private area.
When the mother questioned her daughter what had occurred since blood was coming out, the daughter said that the accused had stuck his finger into the area where she had urinated.
An FIR was soon filed when the girl’s parents brought her to the hospital. It cannot be expected of a young child, barely four years old, to focus on the picture and identify the person, the court said in upholding the sentence of strict imprisonment for 10 years and a fine of Rs 25,000. This is because children at that age may find it difficult to focus due to underlying anxiety or being distracted by outside stimuli. The ruling noted, “In the instance of this girl, the difficult circumstance she was enduring may potentially be one of its causes.
The High Court further stated, “There is no reason to doubt the victim girl as she has testified before the court and attributed the specific act to the accused. The girl is relatively clever, not capable of comprehending the repercussions of the act to which she has fallen prey and that it constitutes an offense. There is no justification for the victim girl to have linked the alleged sexual assault to the accused, and there is also no justification for the mother to teach her young kid to take part in the reprehensible behavior about which she complained, according to the court judgment.
