Shivani Gadhavi
Published On: February 06, 2022 at 13:40 IST
The Punjab and Haryana High Court on February 04, 2022 observed that a Testimony given by a child Witness can also be the only reason and basis behind Conviction of an Accused, wherein the child is fully capable of understanding a question and accordingly gives a rational answer to it.
The Punjab and Haryana High Court Bench of Justices Ritu Bahri and Ashok Kumar Verma was hearing an Appeal filed by a Petitioner challenging a Judgment Order of an Additional Sessions Judge, within which the current Appellant was Convicted under Section 376 (Punishment for Rape) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 (Penetrative Sexual Assault) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO).
According to the Trial Court, the Victim was competent enough to be considered as a Witness in the Case and she had sufficient understanding of what had happened to her. The Victim’s answers to all the questions that were asked to her, were found to be satisfactory.
The Counsel for the current Petitioner put forth an argument that they were not given a chance to Cross-Examine the Victim, who was also a Witness in the case. Hence, the Testimony of the Victim should not be considered as the only basis for the Conviction of the Appellant.
The Counsel for the Respondents in the current Case, stated that ‘the Accused/Appellant had slept over his right’ to ask for a Cross-Examination, as no Application in this regard was made and that no questionnaire was submitted by them at the time of examination of the Victim.
The Bench also stated that, “Once a child Witness, if found competent to depose to the facts and reliable one such Evidence could be the basis of Conviction. In other words, even in the absence of oath, the evidence of a child Witness can be considered under Section 118 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 provided that such Witness is able to understand the answers thereof.”
The Division Bench in light of all the facts and observations made, stated that, “In view of the above discussions, we are of the considered opinion that the Impugned Judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge does not call for any interference by this Court.”