New Delhi, The Delhi Excessive Court docket has upheld the acquittal of a person accused of kidnapping and raping a 16-year-old lady, ruling that the horoscope and vaccination card weren’t proof of age and therefore, he couldn’t be prosecuted underneath the POCSO Act.
A bench of Justices Navin Chawla and Ravinder Dudeja mentioned the survivor’s age is the “prime query” in instances underneath the POCSO Act, however the lady’s mother and father might neither state her date of start nor produce an authentic start certificates on file.
In his testimony, the lady’s father mentioned his spouse used their daughter’s horoscope ready on the time of her start for college admission.
Nonetheless, the courtroom mentioned, “Admittedly, janam patri can’t be thought-about as proof of date of start. Due to this fact, the age recorded within the faculty file primarily based on the horoscope can not even be thought-about as proof of age.”
Date of start within the Jachcha Bachcha Raksha Card or vaccination card was additionally not professional, it mentioned.
Within the judgment handed on Wednesday, the bench concluded that within the absence of “genuine” paperwork, the prosecution did not show that the prosecutrix was a minor on the time of the incident, and due to this fact, the Safety of Kids from Sexual Offences Act has no applicability within the case.
In line with the prosecution, the lady, aged round 16 years, was kidnapped by the respondent in January 2013. She was present in Amritsar, following which the police booked the respondent for kidnap and rape underneath the Indian Penal Code and for penetrative sexual assault underneath the POCSO Act.
It mentioned the lady rang house from a cell phone, which led to the tracing of her location and the resultant arrest of the respondent from Amritsar railway station.
The respondent, nevertheless, claimed that he was falsely implicated.
A trial courtroom acquitted him of all fees in July 2019.
The excessive courtroom mentioned the prosecutrix’s testimony didn’t encourage confidence that it was of sterling high quality, and was marked by materials contradictions, enhancements and inconsistencies.
It noticed that her testimony concerning the circumstances through which she left house, her prior contact with the accused and the occasions allegedly constituting the offence was inconsistent.
The courtroom held that discrepancies went to the foundation of the prosecution’s case; the place and method of the respondent’s arrest had been additionally uncertain.
“The prosecution has did not show the respondent’s guilt past an affordable doubt. The trial courtroom’s findings don’t endure from perversity or illegality warranting interference,” it mentioned, upholding the trial courtroom’s judgment.
