Ramdas Narayan Wagh vs The State Of Maharashtra Thr. Police ... on 26 April, 2018
5 The victim has deposed that her date of birth is
5.3.2001, the defence did not challenge the said statement.
Shri N.B. Jawade, the learned APP is justified in placing reliance
on the Division Bench Judgment in Kundan s/o.Nanaji Pendor
Vs. The State of Maharashtra, 2017 ALL MR (Cri) 1137 and in
contending that in the absence of a challenge to the assertion of
the victim that her date of birth is 5.3.2001, it must be held that
the prosecution proved that the victim is a child within the
meaning of section 2(d) of the POCSO Act. The testimony of the
victim is confidence inspiring. She has deposed that on 25.1.2014
after returning from school, she went to play with the grand-
daughter of the accused. The accused gave some amount to his
grand-daughter Poonam to buy chocolate and after Poonam left,
the accused took the victim in the house, bolted the door of the
house from inside, increased the volume of television and
subjected the victim to sexual intercourse. In the cross-
examination, the testimony of the victim is not shaken. Minor and
inconsequential omissions are brought on record. The omissions
do not touch the core of the testimony and the credibility of the
testimony is not dented. Illustratively, that the victim did not state
before the police that she accompanied her mother to the house of
the accused is an omission. The statement that the mother of the
::: Uploaded on - 26/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 27/04/2018 01:52:31 :::
9
victim told the accused that he did bad act, is an omission and that
the accused asked the victim to go in the house is an omission.
These omissions do not take the case of the defence any further.
The substratum of the testimony is not affected. The suggestion
that the accused demanded return of the hand loan extended to
the father of the victim, is denied.