A Jharkhand Court as of late acquited the vice-principal of a school and the school nurse blamed for physically attacking a 8-year-old schoolgirl[State of Jharkhand v Emerencia Lomga].
According to Prabhakar Singh, a special judge appointed under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO Act), the prosecution’s case could not be established because the child-survivor’s evidence did not appear to be reliable.
The judge went on to say, “Since evidence of victim child on material points is based on her feelings and suspicion and it suffers from addition and improvement, it does not appear to be trustworthy and does not inspire confidence in the court.”
The victim’s father filed the complaint, claiming that his daughter had been raped and had committed unnatural acts with the help of the nurse, class teacher, vice principal, and others.
The victim had testified that she had been sexually assaulted, and medical evidence also supported this, according to the prosecution.
The defense advocate argued that the prosecution’s case was based on material contradictions and improvements. Additionally, it was stated that certain facts and circumstances rendered the prosecution’s narrative suspect and unreliable.
In this regard, it was argued that the evidence presented by victims of sexual assault must be convincing, trustworthy, and should inspire confidence in the court.
The victim’s deposition was seriously questioned because it was said that she had contradicted herself on important points and other witnesses.
When the victim’s statement was examined by the Court, the Court concluded that it was an improved and contradictory version of the victim’s statement to the magistrate.
Additionally, the Court noted that the father’s evidence had no basis and was based on assumptions and suspicion.
The judge stated, “Allegation of informant based on an inquiry in secret that rape and unnatural offence has been committed against his daughter in connivance with the nurse, class teacher, vice principal, and others could not be established.”
As a result, the Court came to the conclusion that the prosecution’s case against the accused remained shaky, and the two accused were found not guilty.
Advocate Shahnawaz Abdul Malik represented the accused, and Special Public Prosecutor Anil Kumar Singh represented the sstate
By:-Yuvraj Sachdeva, BA+LLB(2nd Semester), RNB Global University
0 Comments