A Delhi court has acquitted a man of the charge of kidnapping and raping a 10-year-old girl, saying "it was difficult to rely upon testimony of the child alone to conclude the guilt of the accused".
Additional Sessions Judge Illa Rawat absolved Delhi resident Ganga Ram of the offences under sections 363 (kidnap) and 376 (2)(f)(rape of a girl below 12 years of age) of IPC, while saying that the child's testimony was not reliable.
"It is a well settled law that the conviction on the sole evidence of a child witness is permissible if found competent to testify after careful scrutiny...In the light of attendant facts and circumstances, it is difficult to rely upon the testimony of the child alone to draw a conclusion about the guilt of the accused," the judge said.
The court also said that there was an unexplained delay of one month in reporting the matter of rape to the police.
"In the present case, the delay of one month in reporting rape does not stand explained satisfactorily by prosecution... In these circumstances, the possibility of victim child, who was aged only about 10 years being tutored can also not be ruled out," it said.
According to the prosecution, the girl went missing from her house on August 11, 2012, and when she could not be found, her father lodged a missing complaint with the police.
A week later, she was found in a village near Narela here and as per her statement to the magistrate she had gone to her friend's place but lost her way back home, it said.
However, on September 18, 2012, the girl's father lodged another complaint alleging that his daughter was kidnapped and raped by one Ganga Ram, a native of Bihar, who resided in the nearby village, it said, adding that the girl was scared and informed him about the incident only later.
The minor girl, who had initially said she had lost her way, supported the case saying she was kidnapped and raped by Ram at his house. He was arrested.
The court, however, gave the accused the benefit of doubt, while noting that the parents of the girl did not note any injury when she was found and initial medical report too did not prove the same, until one month.
"It was for the prosecution to prove that the victim had sustained injuries to her private parts on account of rape committed on her between August 11-18,but it failed to do so."
"Considering that there was a gap of about a month between the first and second medical report, the possibility of victim having been sexually assaulted by some one, during the one month after she was found, cannot be ruled out," the court said.
