"Defence Failed To Decimate Veracity Of Birth Certificate During Cross-Examination": Sikkim HC Upholds Conviction In POCSO Case
The Sikkim High Court has upheld the conviction of a POCSO accused while observing that the defence failed to decimate the veracity of the victim's birth certificate during cross-examination.
In that context, the Bench of Justice Meenakshi Madan Rai observed that, "The cross-examination therefore merely reaffirms what he has stated in his evidence in chief, while relying on “Doc A”. It did not decimate the veracity of “Doc A” or its contents nor were the provisions of law as per the Evidence Act, as discussed above, taken into consideration when the cross-examination was conducted. PW-5 corroborated the evidence of PW-3 where under cross-examination he testified that he was absolutely sure that “Doc A” is the copy of the original/first birth certificate. Thus, although “Doc A” could not have been admitted in evidence, however for the foregoing reasons and the same having remained undecimated in cross-examination, the finding of the Learned Trial Court with regard to the age of the victim based on the document requires no interference."
The appellant appealed against his conviction by the Special Trial Court under Section 7 of the POCSO Act for sexually assaulting a seventeen-year-old girl. One of his main arguments was about the victim's age. He claimed that the age stated in the photocopy of the victim's birth certificate and the live birth register was not legally proven.
The original birth certificate was not presented in court, only a copy was. The Registrar of Births and Deaths (PW-5) provided a photocopy of the live birth register containing the victim's birth date. However, the informant for the birth entry was not recorded in the register, and this informant was not called as a prosecution witness.
Despite these issues, the Trial Court observed that the Registrar verified that the photocopy of the birth certificate matched the original live birth register entries. Based on PW-5's testimony, the court accepted the date of birth on the photocopy as the victim's age, even though the original document was not produced.
The High Court further observed that, "The evidence of PW-5 is again relevant. He is the witness who produced the original live birth register maintained in the relevant office. He identified Exbt-4 as the copy of the relevant page/portion of the live birth register containing the entries pertaining to the minor victim. His cross-examination was merely a reaffirmation that Exbt-4 was the relevant page of the live birth register containing the entries. No questions were put to him in cross-examination regarding the non-examination of the informant of the details at Serial No.64 of the said document. Consequently, the finding of the Learned Trial Court on this aspect is also upheld."
Cause Title: Ganesh Tamang vs State of Sikkim
Click here to read/download the Judgment
