[ad_1]
CHENNAI: The evidence of a sexual harassment survivor who is blind cannot become inadmissible on the ground that she is visually impaired, the Madras HC said while upholding a trial court’s order that awarded seven-year jail to an autorickshaw driver who had assaulted the woman.
As per the prosecution, autorickshaw driver Anbu Selvan was hired to transport the survivor to her music class. Taking advantage of her disability, he took her to a secluded spot and sexually harassed her. He even tried to kill her.
Challenging a trial court order awarding a sevenyear jail term to him, Selvan moved the HC saying her evidence could not be relied upon as she was blind. He said, “The identity of the accused was not proved in the manner known to law and since the witness (survivor) is a blind, her evidence cannot be termed as eye witness if at all, can be termed as a hearsay witness which is inadmissible in evidence.”
Justice RMT Teekka Raman termed Selvan as a “heartless person” who had capitalised on the helpless situation of a visuallyimpaired person and sexually assaulted her. He is not entitled to reduction of sentence, not even for a single day, the judge asserted.
He said, “Just because of the disability, evidence of disabled persons can’t be treated as inferior in nature. The survivor as a blind lacks vision, but her version had vision and hence, this court holds that the evidence of the survivor is admissible in evidence.” He confirmed the sentence awarded by trial court.
As per the prosecution, autorickshaw driver Anbu Selvan was hired to transport the survivor to her music class. Taking advantage of her disability, he took her to a secluded spot and sexually harassed her. He even tried to kill her.
Challenging a trial court order awarding a sevenyear jail term to him, Selvan moved the HC saying her evidence could not be relied upon as she was blind. He said, “The identity of the accused was not proved in the manner known to law and since the witness (survivor) is a blind, her evidence cannot be termed as eye witness if at all, can be termed as a hearsay witness which is inadmissible in evidence.”
Justice RMT Teekka Raman termed Selvan as a “heartless person” who had capitalised on the helpless situation of a visuallyimpaired person and sexually assaulted her. He is not entitled to reduction of sentence, not even for a single day, the judge asserted.
He said, “Just because of the disability, evidence of disabled persons can’t be treated as inferior in nature. The survivor as a blind lacks vision, but her version had vision and hence, this court holds that the evidence of the survivor is admissible in evidence.” He confirmed the sentence awarded by trial court.
[ad_2]
Source
