'No Parent Would Falsely Claim 7 Yr Old Was Abused': Telangana HC Upholds POCSO Conviction, Says Minor Contradictions Won't Matter If Victim Statement Consistent

Telangana High Court upheld a conviction under the POCSO Act upon holding that when the basic version narrated by the victim girl remains the same, minor discrepancies/ several contradictions will not affect her narration.

Justice K. Surender passed the order in a criminal appeal, filed by the accused, against the conviction order passed by the lower court under section 7 r/w 8 of the POCSO Act.

The Bench noted that although 'several contradictions' were recorded during the cross-examination, the basic version narrated in the complaint and elicited in the cross-examination was the same, and hence, the contradictions would not discredit the narration of the victim girl. It held:

"The said version is consistent both in the statement made during the course of investigation and also before the Court. Though the witnesses were cross-examined extensively, the basic version of the victim going to answer nature call and the appellant lying on is consistent. Though several contradictions were brought on record regarding the statements made and also the scene of offence, such minor discrepancies will not in any manner affect the version of the victim girl."

The victim stated that on the day of the incident, she and her sister had come back from school and gone outside the house to answer the calls of nature, when suddenly the accused/appellant who lived in the floor above her house, picked her up, took her under a nearby tree, undressed her and laid himself onto her.

It was submitted that the victim began to scream, which drew the attention of her mother. The mother of the victim submitted that she ran to her daughter, pushed the accused, and called for her husband. When her husband arrived, it was submitted that they both beat up the accused and lodged a complaint against him.

The trial court convicted the accused against which, the present appeal had been preferred.

The Counsel for the accused contended that there were clear inconsistencies and improvements in the case at hand. It was argued that there were also discrepancies in how the investigation was conducted. At the earliest point, nobody was named as the accused, however before the Court the mother of the victim claimed to know the accused, it was contended.

It was also stated that the alleged day of the incident was Sunday, and as such there was school that day. It was argued that the scene of the offence was not clearly established, the victim was not medically examined, and the father of the victim and appellant/accused were constantly quarreling and had ongoing disputes. However, it was argued that ignoring the glaring inconsistencies the accused was convicted for the offence.

Justice Surender noted that although there were several contradictions that surfaced during the cross-examination, no child would be able to narrate her version with such clarity and endure the cross-examination if the incident had not actually taken place.

The Bench lastly observed that the complaint was preferred on the same day of the incident, and firmly iterated that no parent would falsely state that their child was abused just to implicate a person. It held:

"No parent would go to the extent of falsely implicating a person stating that the 7 year old child was abused. A seven year old girl would not speak with such clarity and withstand cross examination, if the incident had not taken place. In view above facts and circumstances, there are no grounds to interfere with the judgment of the trial Court."

The conviction was upheld.

CrlA 01 of 2022

Counsel for petitioner: Kathyaeni Ramshetty

Counsel for respondent: Public Prosecutor

Click Here To Read/Download Order