Delhi High Court: A Division Bench comprising of S. Muralidhar and V. Kameswar Rao, JJ. dismissed an appeal filed against the judgment of the trial court whereby the appellant was convicted under Sections 325, 363 and 376(2) IPC along with Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.
The appellant was convicted for raping an 8 years old minor girl. He was alleged to have kidnapped her while she was playing with her younger sisters and thereafter commit rape and aggravated penetrative sexual assault upon her. The appellant was tried and convicted by the trial court for the offences mentioned above. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant filed the instant appeal.
The High Court perused the record and was of the view that the order impugned does not call for interference. The evidence against the appellant proved his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. As far as the testimony of the victim was concerned, the Court referred to Dattu Ramrao Sakhare v. State of Maharashtra, (1997) 5 SCC 341 and observed that the only precaution which the Court has to bear in mind while assessing the evidence of a child witness is that the witness must be a reliable one. In the present case, the Court was of the view that victim’s testimony inspired confidence as to its credibility. Furthermore, the evidence of matching of appellant’s DNA with the semen stains found on victim’s pyjama was more than a clinching evidence to prove appellant’s guilt. In such circumstances, the Court affirmed the order impugned and dismissed the appeal. [Gopi Nisha Mallah v. State (NCT of Delhi),2018 SCC OnLine Del 11021, dated 04-09-2018]
