Despite negative DNA report, POCSO court refuses to discharge man accused of sexual assault

The court accepted the statement of the survivor that the accused had sexually assaulted her while she was in relationship with another man who was responsible for her pregnancy

A special POCSO (Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act 2012) court has refused to discharge the cousin of a minor girl, who was found pregnant, though the DNA profiling did not support the case against him.

As per the prosecution, on January 15, 2020, the survivor complained of acute pain in her stomach and her family members took her to a local doctor who advised them to admit her to a hospital (AP)

The court accepted the statement of the survivor that the accused had sexually assaulted her while she was in relationship with another man who was responsible for her pregnancy.

As per the prosecution, on January 15, 2020, the survivor complained of acute pain in her stomach and her family members took her to a local doctor who advised them to admit her to a hospital. Her parents then took her to Cama hospital where her examination revealed that the minor was pregnant and in labor pain. She gave birth to a baby boy at the state-run facility.

After her delivery, the girl claimed that her maternal cousin had sexually assaulted her while she was alone at home. Hence, a case was registered against him.

The defence counsel informed the court that the victim had admitted that she was in relationship with another man who resided in their locality and neither the DNA profiling of the newborn nor any other medical report showed the cousin’s connection with the alleged offence.

The prosecution countered the claim. It said that the girl had categorically stated that she was assaulted by her maternal cousin and it was only when her second statement was recorded three days later that she claimed that she falsely gave the name of her cousin to her mother but he had no sexual relations with her.

The court, however, refused to accept the defence counsel’s argument. It said that considering her close relations with the accused, the possibility of her giving the second statement on January 18, 2020 under the pressure of her near relatives could not be ruled out.

“Even though medical evidence does not show any connection of the accused with the victim’s pregnancy, her statement to the medical officer that he had also physical relations with her, a few months ago, could not be ignored,” the court said, while rejecting his discharge plea.