The accused was held guilty by the court even after the complainant — the survivor’s father — turned hostile and retracted his statements.
The court relied on the child’s statement and medical evidence to convict the accused.
On February 23, 2021, her father filed a complaint alleging the previous night, his brother Rahul (32) had come to his house and taken his five-year-old daughter to a room.
They did not suspect any foul play as they thought that he was playing with her.
The next morning, he went to the room and found his daughter unconscious and her clothes bloody.
Based on his complaint, a case was registered under Section 6 (punishment for aggravated penetrative sexual assault) of the Pocso Act.
Rahul was arrested the next day.
The chargesheet was filed on March 15.
During the trial, Rahul claimed to be innocent, he failed to explain why blood was found on the girl’s clothes and how she suffered injuries on her private parts.
Sanjeev Jain, the counsel for the accused, argued that testimony of the victim was not corroborated by her parents, as they said in court that no such incident took place and nothing wrong happened.
Aakash Tanwar, special public prosecutor, said the survivor narrated the entire incident, even when her parents turned hostile.
“The medical evidence and statement of the child proved crucial in the case,” said Tanwar.
Narender Pal, additional sessions judge of the Nuh fast-track special court (Pocso Act), sentenced Rahul to 20 years of rigorous imprisonment and also imposed a fine of Rs 25,000 on him.
The court observed Rahul, as the child’s uncle, was supposed to protect her, but he himself sexually exploited her.
The court also made an observation on the parents changing their statement because the accused was the real brother.
“If the prosecution feels that the parents have given false evidence before the court, as they didn’t support the prosecution’s case as per the contents of the complaint, police are at liberty to take legal action against them as per law,” the order said.
(The victim’s identity has not been revealed to protect her privacy as per Supreme Court directives on cases related to sexual assault.)