Cannot Expect Any Eye Witness Or Independent Witness As Culprits Assault Children When Alone: Madras HC
Cannot Expect Any Eye Witness Or Independent Witness As Culprits Assault Children When Alone – Madras HC
Background
Child sexual assault cases often occur in private settings where the perpetrator is alone with the victim.
Investigating such cases poses challenges because there are no independent eyewitnesses.
There have been instances where courts demanded corroboration from eyewitnesses or third-party witnesses, which is impractical in child assault cases.
The Madras High Court clarified that the absence of independent witnesses does not weaken the prosecution’s case, especially in sexual assault or molestation cases involving children.
Key Observations of the Court
No Eye Witness Expected
The Court observed that sexual assault on children usually occurs in isolation.
Expecting an independent witness in such circumstances is unrealistic and unfair to the victim.
Credibility of Victim’s Statement
The statement of the child victim under Section 164 CrPC or before the magistrate is credible evidence.
The Court emphasized that the testimony of a child victim must be given due weight, even in the absence of corroboration.
Nature of Evidence in Child Sexual Assault
Circumstantial evidence, medical evidence, and victim’s statement are sufficient for conviction.
Courts should adopt a sensitive approach recognizing the vulnerability of child victims.
Judicial Precedents
The Court relied on earlier rulings that child assault cases cannot be treated like other criminal cases requiring corroboration.
Relevant Legal Provisions
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012
Sections 19–22 deal with recording statements of child victims.
Section 33 and 34 emphasize special courts and procedures for children.
Indian Evidence Act, 1872
Section 118 and 121: Consideration of child witnesses’ statements.
Courts may convict based on victim’s testimony alone, if credible.
Case Law Support
State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh (1996) 2 SCC 384
Supreme Court held that victim’s testimony in sexual assault is credible if consistent, even without corroboration.
Lillu v. State of Haryana (1987) 1 SCC 373
Court emphasized that rape or sexual assault usually occurs in private, and absence of independent witnesses cannot discredit the case.
Madras HC ruling (recent)
Reiterated that in child assault cases, lack of eyewitnesses or independent witnesses is natural, and courts must rely on child’s account, medical reports, and circumstantial evidence.
Significance of the Judgment
Victim-Centric Approach
Recognizes the special vulnerability of child victims.
Encourages courts to adopt a sensitive and practical approach in POCSO cases.
Strengthens Prosecution
Confirms that child testimony under Section 164/POCSO is sufficient for conviction.
Reduces unfair hurdles created by demanding corroboration that is impossible to provide.
Deters Offenders
Sends a strong message to perpetrators that crimes against children will be punished even in absence of eyewitnesses.
Conclusion
The Madras High Court ruling underscores that in cases of child sexual assault, courts cannot insist on eyewitness or independent corroboration, as assaults often occur in private. The child’s testimony, supported by medical and circumstantial evidence, is sufficient for conviction. This approach aligns with POCSO Act provisions, and reinforces a victim-sensitive criminal justice system in India
RELATED Blog
0 comments