Facts
The child survivor, aged 14 years, with hearing, speaking, and cognitive impairments, was sexually assaulted by the accused person, who was the landlord of her house and who had lured her away to the market using sweetmeat. She did not return home until much later and informed her mother about the abuse using gestures. An FIR was registered. The trial court convicted the accused under Section 376 of the IPC. However, the High Court acquitted the accused on the ground that since the child survivor herself was not examined, the factum of rape and involvement of the accused could not be held to have been proved. The State appealed the order of acquittal passed by the High Court.
Judgment
The Court restored the conviction of the accused and took note of the need to create conducive environments to encourage vulnerable witnesses to make their statements. In furtherance of this, the need for VWDCs was emphasised by the court. The Court took note of guidelines laid down in Sakshi v. Union of India and Ors. and Gurmit Singh. Additionally, The court directed for VWDCs to be set up in every district of the country in line with the guidelines for VWDCs issued by the Delhi High Court. The Court instructed all High Courts to take steps in this direction and ensure that their jurisdictions had at least two such centres in the next three months.
High Court of Delhi