The Bombay High Court has acquitted a person of charges of raping and sexually assaulting a 5-year-old. It said, “It is widely recognized that a toddler witness, via way of means of the cause of his/her soft age is a pliable witness. He/she is amenable to tutoring and inducement and is regularly at risk of telling innovative and exaggerated stories.”
Justice Anuja Prabhudessai was hearing a criminal enchantment filed via way of means of Janardan Kapse via advocate Ravindra Chalke. He is challenging an order via way of means of the Sessions Court at Thane in 2019 of convicting him below Section 376 - punishment for rape) and 354 (A) (1) (i) - physical touch and advances related to unwelcome and explicit sexual overtures of the Indian Penal Code and 4 (punishment for penetrative sexual assault) and of 8 (punishment for sexual assault) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences.
The 12-page-order passed recently recorded, “The toddler has said that her dad and mom had instructed her a way to deliver the statement. She has in addition said that she was questioned by the police about the incident and that her mom had given the answers, which had been taken down in writing. She has admitted that her dad and mom had instructed her how to depose before the court.”
The order reads, “The minor on her personal admission is a tutored witness and for this reason, no implicit reliance may be positioned on her proof. It is withinside the proof that the appellant, his spouse and kids stay in a room on the fifth floor, that's above the room of the first informant (mom of the kid). The first informant has admitted that there has been a quarrel between her and the appellant over the leakage of water from his toilet. Hence the possibility of false implication can't be ruled out.”
Commenting at the Sessions Court judgment, the court said, “The judge has held the appellant responsible of all offences solely on the basis of the statement of the sufferer who's a toddler of 5 years of age however has now no longer considered these material omissions and discrepancies, which render the proof of the kid unreliable. The proof of a toddler witness needs to be scrutinised with extreme care and caution.”