12-Yr-Old Sexual Assault Victim Wouldn't Be Able To Mentally Comprehend Crime, Delay In Lodging FIR Not Fatal To Case: Punjab & Haryana High Court

The Punjab & Haryana High Court has dismissed the appeal file against the conviction for sexual assault committed under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO Act) on 12-year-old girl, observing that, seven days delay in lodging the FIR is not fatal to the case.

Justice Nidhi Gupta said, "It has to be understood that upon having been sexually assaulted by the appellant, the 12-year-old victim child would not have been able to mentally comprehend the nature of what had been done to her. Though the victim could narrate and describe what had been done to her as, at that age there is no sense of shame attached to the act, however, it would not have been possible for the victim to mentally understand or comprehend the crime committed upon her."

 In such circumstances, it is understandable that some delay would occur while the victim is trying to come to grips with or fathom what had transpired, the Court added.

Moreover, it has also been recorded in the impugned order that the appellant had “extended threats to kill her and her parents in case she confided the matter to anyone.” As such, a minor delay in the registration of FIR will not be fatal to the case, noted the judge.

The Court was hearing an appeal filed by a man who was convicted under Section 506 IPC and Section 8 under the POCSO Act for committing sexual assault on a 12-year-old girl.

According to the prosecution, the accused committed sexual assault thrice in one week on the minor by dragging her to the washroom and threatening her that in case she disclosed the same to her parents, she would be killed.

 After hearing the submissions, the Court said that the contention that there is a delay of seven days in the registration of the FIR "is misplaced",  as it has been categorically stated by the complainant that after the commission of offence by the appellant, the victim used to remain depressed.

When this was noticed by the mother of the victim, and she questioned the victim, it is only then that the victim disclosed what had transpired, the Court noted.

Justice Gupta highlighted that it would not have been possible for the victim to mentally understand or comprehend the crime committed upon her. Therefore, some delay in lodging the complaint would be "understandable," the Court said.

The judge also rejected the contention that there was no proof of age of the victim as her birth certificate was not produced.

"Said argument of the appellant is rejected outright as perusal of record of the case shows that age of the victim was irrevocably established to be 12 years and 7 months on the date of incident, on the basis of her school certificate...and admission form...," which was duly proved by the school teacher.

Furthermore, the counsel for the appellant also argued that there was no medical evidence to incriminate the appellant. "However, the Court said that argument is also misplaced as, as per the testimony of the (doctor), who medico-legally examined the victim, and deposed that she had medico-legally examined the prosecutrix..., and prepared the MLR.., wherein she had opined that “the possibility of sexual intercourse cannot be ruled out”, the Court noted

It further noted that as per the MLR “hymen intact, however "small lacerations about 1 cm present on the fourchette”. 

Perusing the deposition of the prosecutrix the Court said, "it is crystal clear that the victim has stuck to her story and has honestly, guilelessly and consistently narrated the events as they transpired. In these facts, factor of the complainant turning hostile will not hold much weight."

Reliance was placed on Narinder Kumar Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) 2012, wherein it has been held that “It is settled legal proposition that once the statement of the prosecutrix inspires confidence and accepted by the Court as such, conviction can be based only on the solitary evidence of the prosecutrix and no corroboration would be required unless there are compelling reasons which necessitate the Court for corroboration of her statement”.

In the light of the above, the Court dismissed the plea.

Title: XXX v. XXX

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 213