The Delhi High Court has upheld the 10-year jail term given to a 70-year-old man for sexually assaulting a four-year-old girl.
Calling the crime reprehensible and unpardonable, Justice S. P. Garg said the victim was like the convict’s granddaughter. The court noted that the convict was aware of what he was doing to the child and knew the consequences of his wrongdoings.
The High Court relied on the testimony of the child, who identified the perpetrator of the crime as ‘budha’ and said that he had touched her private parts, to come to the conclusion that no other evidence was required to prove the man’s guilt.
The incident took place on Holi day in 2014 when the victim had gone to the convict’s house to play. When her mother called her, she came out of the house.
The girl then informed her mother that the convict had put his hand on her private part. On checking, the mother found that the victim’s private part was “dirty/wet”. The victim’s mother called her husband and then the police.
Testimony of child
The victim was taken for medical examination the same day. In her court statement, in response to the question ‘ kya hua tha? [what happened?]’, the girl responded: ‘ haath diya tha ’.
When asked to clarify, the child pointed towards the inside of her underwear.
When specifically asked about what happened, the victim said: “ Budhe ne haath diya tha ’.
The child was able to identify the man as the perpetrator. She also said that prior to the incident, the man had not indulged in any such ‘wrong act’ with her.
The forensic sciences lab and medical reports confirmed that the semen on the victim’s underwear was that of the man. The convict, however, did not offer any explanation as to how and in what manner his semen got on to the victim’s clothes.
‘Falsely implicated’
The man had pleaded not guilty to the charge and had alleged that he was falsely implicated due to a dispute over non-return of loan by the victim’s father in which he had stood ‘guarantor’.
The High Court, however, rejected the convict’s contention and noted that in the absence of prior animosity, the victim’s family is not expected to use their own child to settle score.
It also noted that the FIR was lodged without delay and there was ‘least possibility’ of the complainant to have concocted a false story in such a short period.
“It is not expected from a child aged around four years to give more vivid account of the incident… Her testimony inspires confidence,” the judge said, adding that the convict does not deserve any leniency.
