28 September 2022 09:02 am Views - 182
By Lakmal Sooriyagoda
The Court of Appeal in a judgement relating to an appeal filed over committing grave sexual abuse to an eight-year-old girl held yesterday that absence of corroborative medical evidence is not a reason to fail the charges of grave sexual abuse.
Dismissing the appeal filed by the 63-year-old accused, the Court of Appeal two-judge-bench comprising Justices Priyantha Fernando and Wickum Kaluarachchi held that the High Court Judge’s decision to convict the accused is correct. Accordingly, the Court of Appeal directed 10 years of rigorous imprisonment for two counts against the accused to run concurrently.
The accused was indicted before Kuliyapitiya High Court on two counts of having committed grave sexual abuse on or about August 8, 2011, offences punishable under section 365(b)(2)(b) of the Penal Code.
In its appeal, defence’s first ground was that the evidence of the victim regarding the first count has not been corroborated by the medical evidence.
The Judicial Medical Officer who gave evidence had stated that there could be no injuries when this kind of sexual abuse is committed. The doctor specifically stated that causing the acts of grave sexual abuse could not be excluded for the reason of not having injuries.
The victim was an 8-year-old girl at the time of the incident. The accused was about 63 years old at the time. The victim was living with her mother, and the accused was a known neighbour of the victim who ran a boutique close to the victim’s house, which was nearly 50 metres away.
According to the prosecution, the victim went to the boutique on the day of the incident to purchase an ice packet. Thereafter, the accused had taken the child to the kitchen to commit the offence. The child had told her mother about the incident after three days of the incident. Thereafter, the mother of the victim made a complaint to the police.
The second ground of the accused was that the victim’s mother fabricated this story because of an animosity she had with the appellant over a boundary fence dispute.
However, the prosecution contended that no mother would make up a false story that her little daughter was sexually abused. The prosecution further contended that there could not be a boundary dispute as stated by the accused. The defence submitted to court that the prosecution had entirely depended on circumstantial evidence. Justice Wikum Kaluarachchi observed that the victim’s evidence describing the accused’s acts of grave sexual abuse against her is direct evidence regarding the offences and not circumstantial evidence. So, there is no issue with evaluating circumstantial evidence.