Mahila court sentences man to 10 years RI for raping niece

CHENNAI: In cases of sexual offences against children, corroboration is not of primary importance but a matter of prudence, a

mahila court

here said, adding that if the victim's testimony was wrong on an aspect but otherwise reliable, the entire evidence cannot be discarded.

It then sentenced to 10 years RI a 46-year-old man who in 2013 raped his 16-year-old niece. The girl later delivered a boy.

According to the prosecution, the victim, a Class X student then, was staying in

North Chennai

with her mother. Her maternal uncle Sarvanan*, who was married thrice, often stayed at their house after fights with his wife. After the girl attained puberty, he would often “entice her“ by purchasing her new clothes and dropping her to school in a private vehicle.

In 2013, a drunk Sarvanan raped her and threatened to kill her mother if she informed anyone about the incident.Around 10 days later, he raped her again. A few months later, the girl told her mother who lodged a complaint with the MKB Nagar police. After an inquiry , police took the girl to a hospital, where she was found to be six months pregnant. Medical Termination of Pregnancy could not done at the advanced stage and the girl gave birth to a boy on June 12, 2014.

Police chargesheeted Sarvanan under Section 6 (punishment for aggravated sexual assault) of the Pocso Act and relevant IPC sections. Police examined 13 witnesses and cited 13 documents during the trial.

Counsel for the accused sa id a false case was foisted, the victim's allegations were not corroborated and charges were not proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Mahila court judge

R Kalaimathi

said, according to legal principles, instead of the number of witnesses, the content of evidence had to be considered. “Even based on solitary witness...an accused can be convicted if it inspires confidence of the court,“ she said.

Even if the victim mentioned wrong date of the incident, it could not vitiate the entire evidence, she added. “It is a well settled principle of law that the testimony of a witness can be accepted in part.“ (name changed).