Delhi HC upholds jail term to school bus driver for sexually assaulting 2 minors

Justice Jasmeet Singh, while dismissing the accused’s appeal, said that the nature and gravity of the accusation were very serious and the minor contradictions in the version of the two victims did not make their testimonies unreliable

The Delhi high court has upheld a lower court’s five-year-jail term to a school bus driver for sexually assaulting two minor students in 2014, while observing that a witness who turns hostile need not mean she is unreliable.

The Delhi high court said all the witnesses duly supported the case of the prosecution and all testimonies with regard to the basic version of the story were consistent. (Representative image)

The accused had challenged a 2020 trial court decision holding him guilty of Section 354A (sexual harassment) of the India Penal Code and Section 10 (punishment for aggravated sexual assault) of the POCSO Act on grounds that there were contradictions in the prosecution case and both victims could not give the exact date and sequence of the event.

Justice Jasmeet Singh, while dismissing the accused’s appeal, said that the nature and gravity of the accusation were very serious and the minor contradictions in the version of the two victims did not make their testimonies unreliable.

“The testimonies of both victims clearly describe the acts of aggravated sexual assault committed by the appellant on the minor child victims. The description of the incident has been described by both the victims in an identical manner and hence, the contention that the contradictions shake the version of the prosecution and makes it unreliable cannot be accepted,” the court said in a judgment on Wednesday.

“I find no fault or irregularity in the common judgement dated 27.02.2020 and common order on sentence dated 06.03.2020 passed by the ASJ-1 (North East), Karkardooma Courts, Delhi. The appeals are accordingly dismissed,” ordered the court.

The court said all the witnesses duly supported the case of the prosecution and all testimonies with regard to the basic version of the story were consistent.

Two FIRs were registered in 2014 in the matter after the minor girls informed their parents of the crime.

The appellant also challenged the trial court verdict on the ground that the additional public prosecution had put forth leading questions to one of the victims without declaring her hostile and put words in her mouth.