Recently, the Telangana High Court examined a criminal appeal raising important questions on the manner in which trial courts rely upon the testimony of child witnesses in prosecutions for serious sexual offences under the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
The case arose from a complaint lodged in July 2007 alleging that a 12-year-old schoolboy was subjected to unnatural sexual assault by his tuition teacher. An FIR was registered for offences under Section 377 IPC, and after investigation, the accused was tried before the Special Sessions Court constituted under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. In 2010, the trial court convicted the accused under Section 377 IPC and sentenced him to ten years’ rigorous imprisonment. The conviction was challenged before the High Court.
The Appellant contended that the prosecution failed to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, as the minor victim was never subjected to medical examination despite referral to a government hospital, resulting in the absence of medical evidence. It was further argued that the trial court failed to conduct the mandatory competency assessment of the child witness under Section 118 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, and that there were material inconsistencies in the testimonies of prosecution witnesses.
The State opposed the appeal, submitting that the victim’s testimony was credible and sufficient to sustain a conviction even in the absence of medical corroboration.
The High Court noted an unexplained delay in lodging the complaint, discrepancies in witness statements, and the refusal of medical examination by the victim and his father. The Court emphasised that compliance with Section 118 of the Evidence Act is mandatory, particularly where the prosecution's case rests almost entirely on the testimony of a minor. It was observed that failure to assess and record the competency of a child witness renders such evidence unsafe for sustaining a conviction.
Holding that the prosecution failed to prove the offence under Section 377 IPC beyond a reasonable doubt due to procedural lapses and lack of reliable corroboration, the Telangana High Court set aside the conviction and acquitted the Appellant.
Case Title: Baddam Prashanth Reddy V. State of A.P
Case No.: Criminal Appeal No.745 of 2010
Coram: Hon’ble Ms Justice J.Sreenivas Rao
Counsel for the Appellant: Adv.Rajagopallavan Tayi
Counsel for the Respondent: Asst.P.P. M.Vivekananda Reddy
Read Judgement @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
