A minor inconsistency in the testimony of the victim will not stand as a bar to conviction: High Court of Delhi
Minor inconsistency in the statement and testimony of the victim will not stand as a bar in the conviction and ordered the appellant to be guilty under the offenses charged under the POSCO Act. This was held in the case of Vijay v. State, [CRL. A. 969/2017] by Hon’ble Justice Vibhu Bhakru in the High Court of Delhi.
The appellant was convicted of an offense punishable under Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. The appellant also was sentenced to serve ten years of rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of ₹10,000/- for the offense for which he was convicted. The appellant was charged with barging in the jhuggi of the victim at about 03.00 a.m. It was alleged that he had removed the panty/underwear of the prosecutrix (a minor aged about nine years at the material time). He had allegedly touched her vagina and had also inserted his finger inside her anus.
The statement of the prosecutrix stated that the door of the jhuggi remains opened. She alleged that at about 03:00 a.m. one boy whose name was Vijay and who lived in the same cluster of jhuggies had entered her jhuggi while all its inhabitants were asleep. She stated that she was acquainted with the accused. She alleged that he removed her underwear and started feeling her vagina and he forcibly inserted the finger from where she defecates. She stated that she raised an alarm and her parents woke up. They attempted to apprehend him but he fled from the spot. She stated that her parents searched for him and found him at about 06:00 a.m. on the terrace of the silai center. They caught hold of him and called the police. She stated that the police officials came and he was handed over to them. In his statement recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.PC, the appellant stated that he had been falsely implicated as his family did not have good relations with the family. He alleged that she had persuaded the family of the prosecutrix to falsely implicate him in this case.
The Court observed that the testimony of the prosecutrix cannot be considered as unreliable. This Court finds no material inconsistency between her testimony and her statements recorded earlier. The fact that she alleged that the appellant had been following her for three to four days prior to the date of the incident, in her statement recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.PC, does not in any manner raise any doubts as to the allegations made by her. Considering the manner in which the offense was committed, the inconsistency regarding whether he had inserted his finger in the vagina or had felt it, would not be of much relevance. In any event, this Court is of the view that the said inconsistency does not in any manner raise any doubts as to the allegations made by the prosecutrix. The Court held the appellant guilty of the offense for which he is charged.