Facts
The child survivor was 6 and a half years old when she was subjected to rape and sexual assault by the accused. The accused and his accomplice kidnapped the child from the lawful custody of her parents and committed rape upon her. They also inflicted various injuries upon the person of the child survivor. The parents of the child survivor reported her to be missing and lodged an FIR with the police on the next day of the incident. The accused was charged and convicted by the trial court u/s. 363/34 IPC, 376 and 308 IPC. However, the conviction was appealed based on the inconsistencies in the child survivor’s statements under Sections 161 and 164 CrPC and her testimony. The child survivor claimed he did ‘ganda kaam’ with her but did not explain what he did.
Judgment
The High Court held that the magistrate had satisfied herself with regard to the competency of the child survivor. The child survivor explained that the accused started doing ‘ganda kaam’ with her. The magistrate did not ask her to explain what she meant by ‘ganda kaam’ and thus she did not explain herself further. Thus, the child can not be blamed for not clarifying what “ganda kaam” is. When the child survivor during her testimony explained what ‘ganda kaam’ was. Thus, the argument of the appellant that the testimony of the child is unreliable and vague does not stand. The Courts held that the broader probabilities of a case should be examined and one should not get swayed by minor contradictions or insignificant discrepancies in the statement of the child survivor, which are not of a fatal nature, to throw out an otherwise reliable prosecution case. The court also emphasised that no witness is expected to narrate in a parrot like manner and even the non narration in a parrot like manner gives credence to the testimony of the witnesses.