New Delhi: A mother is not expected to put the honour of her child at stake by implicating somebody in a molestation case, Delhi High Court has said while upholding the conviction and six-month jail term of a 60-year-old man.
Justice S P Garg said the convict's defence that he was falsely implicated in the case to avoid paying for goods bought from him by the girl's mother was "devoid of merit" as no evidence was shown that anything was purchased from him.
"No ulterior motive was assigned to the child for making a false statement against the individual aged around sixty years and with whom she had no prior ill-will or animosity. The defence that X's mother had purchased certain eatables on credit and was unable to return the amount and was falsely implicated to avoid payment is devoid of merits," it said.
"For such a trivial issue, mother is not expected to put the honour of her tiny child at stake. The petitioner also did not produce on record any evidence to show if any particular item was purchased by victim's mother, and if so, when and for what price. No documentary evidence has emerged on record in this regard. The petitioner who himself was a petty vendor is not expected to sell articles on huge credit," the high court added.
According to the prosecution, the accused, a street vendor who sold peanuts and 'gajjak' on a 'rehri' (wheelcart) here, had taken the minor girl to his house on January 10, 2008 when she was on her way home and had outraged her modesty after wrongfully confining her.
The magisterial court had held him guilty of the offence and awarded him one year of rigorous imprisonment, which was endorsed by the sessions court that however had reduced the sentence to simple imprisonment for six months.
The high court upheld the conviction and sentence, saying the "convict was mature enough to understand the consequences of his act, so he does not deserve leniency as the victim was akin to his daughter".
The man had moved the high court challenging the legality and correctness of the sessions judge's June 4 judgment.
Holding that the appeal lacks merit, the high court has observed that scanning the testimony of the victim, it reveals that despite detailed cross-examination nothing material could be elicited to disbelieve her version.