Business enmity seldom goes down the wire like this. A nine-year-old boy was persuaded by his father to allege in a police complaint that he had been sodomised by his father’s business rival, who is an HIV positive patient.
Granting bail to Sunil (name changed) (40) Additional Sessions Judge Gurdeep Kumar said he was “shocked’ by the inconsistency in the child’s version before the police and before a magistrate. “The evidence of a victim of sex offence is entitled great weight,” he said.
It is rare for courts to grant bail to people accused of sexually abusing children. The court noted that the accused is also an HIV positive patient.
Vijay Aggarwal, Sunil’s counsel, argued that the medical report establishes no evidence of sexual abuse on the child. Sunil was arrested on September 11, 2010, and has been in jail since then.
Aggarwal contended that the FIR is based on the victim’s version disclosed to his father, the complainant in the case, and the child’s version recorded before the magistrate is different.
The judge said that the doctor who conducted the “victim’s” medical examination has specifically stated that there was nothing suggestive of any sexual abuse on the child.
Aggarwal said, “There is nothing on record to suggest the accused’s involvement in any such criminal offence in the past. He is a shopkeeper and has his own family.”
The prosecution said that the child had not varied much in his statements, and that doctors have found medical evidence corroborating the child’s claim of sexual abuse.
The court rubbished the prosecution’s theory and said that the police have completed their probe in the case, and there is no need for the accused to be kept behind bars.