New Delhi: A court has convicted a man of unnatural sex, aggravated penetrative sexual assault and murder of an 11-and-a-half-year-old child, holding that the injury inflicted was “sufficient in all circumstances to cause death even of a matured person, and in the case of a minor child, the death becomes even more certain”.Convicting the accused under Indian Penal Code and Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, judge Amit Sahrawat underscored that the prosecution had established a complete and coherent chain of circumstances pointing unerringly towards the guilt of the accused. After examining medical and forensic evidence, the court held that the case stood proved as “there is no missing link in the said chain of events”. It observed that when all facts were considered together, “the only hypothesis which could be drawn is that accused took away deceased, committed penetrative sexual assault and, thereafter, caused death of deceased child”.According to the prosecution led by Aaditya Kumar, the child had gone missing on Jan 2, 2019, after his father returned home around 6pm. During the search, the father met the accused, Karamvir Singh, who joined the efforts, and an FIR under kidnapping was registered at 9.30pm.The next morning, Singh claimed that he had “magical powers” and revealed a location near the Narela railway line. Acting on his directions, the family found the child’s body in a dilapidated building. CCTV footage later showed the accused taking the child from a confectioner’s shop towards Narela railway station.He was arrested and led police to recover bloodstained clothes and a knife. The forensic report confirmed the presence of the child’s blood on his jacket, towel, underwear and the recovered knife, while his semen was detected on her clothes and anal swabs. Rejecting the defence’s attempt to attribute the accused’s knowledge to supernatural means, the court held that “there is nothing such like magical powers and all these are superstitious facts which have no relevance in law”. Judge Sahrawat also questioned the logic of the claim, observing that if he already knew the location, there was no reason for him to join the search party in the first place.On the defence’s argument that the victim’s father was an “interested witness”, the court disagreed. “A father who has lost his child shall always try to ensure justice for his deceased child. It is not convincing that a father shall be interested in false implication of any person by letting the real culprit to go free,” it said.
