According to the prosecution, the survivor girl was playing outside her house when the appellant took her with him, closed her eyes and touched her private parts.
After the girl narrated the incident to her mother, a First Information Report (FIR) was lodged and the girl’s statement came to be recorded pursuant to which the appellant was arrested.
He was convicted under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 8 of POCSO Act and was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for five years by a Special POCSO Court in Mumbai.
He then moved the High Court to challenge his conviction.
Advocate Sushan Mhatre, appearing for the appellant, maintained that the appellant was falsely implicated in the case following a quarrel between him and the girl’s father. He underlined that the FIR was lodged two days after the incident and the delay was not explained by the prosecution.
Further, he stated that the medical examination of the survivor revealed no injuries which made the prosecution case doubtful. He, therefore, prayed for the conviction to be set aside.
Source: Barandbench
