In Pocso case, Madras HC fiat says, no corroborative evidence needed
HOLDING THE evidence the survivor girl provided ‘cogent and convincing’, court dismissed appellant’s arguments.
The Madras High Court has ruled that no corroborative evidence is necessary in cases of sexual harassment against children if the evidence of the survivor girl is trustworthy.
“In cases of this nature, no corroborative evidence is necessary, if the evidence of the victim girl is trustworthy,” Justice P. Velmurugan said on Wednesday, dismissing an appeal filed by one Venkatachalam against the trial court order sentencing him in a case charged under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO) and other laws. “A prudent man would not commit these types of offences in the presence of adult members and the presence of independent eye witnesses is mostly improbable,” the court said.
Holding the evidence the survivor girl provided “cogent and convincing”, the court dismissed the appellant’s arguments that the girl was the only eye witness to the incident and the prosecution proved its case based only on the evidence she produced.
The judge also said nonproduction of the victim girl before the doctor for medical examination or before judicial magistrate for recording the statement will not be fatal to the case of the prosecution.
The judge modified the trial court order which said the sentences of three years of rigorous imprisonment under POCSO Act and one year RI under IPC will run concurrently, and said he will undergo the punishment consecutively “which will meet the ends of justice”.
The prosecution had alleged that the appellant, a neighbour of the 10-yearold girl, took her to his house while she was playing in front of it and sexually harassed her.
The girl shouted but her voice was not heard because of the sound of looms running outside. The girl, however, managed to run out after pushing him.
She did not tell her parents about the incident for fear, the prosecution said. The appellant accosted the girl the next day, too, but she refused to go inside. He then threatened her that he will kill her if she told about the incident to anyone. The girl revealed the incident to her mother who saw the appellant chasing her on the third day, which led to the registration of the case.