Asaram’s counsel Sajjan Raj Surana Argued, while citing many cases from the Supreme Court and the high court, that a life insurance certificate was a document legal enough in any age related dispute in the law and challenged the charges of Pocso on Asaram.
“The life insurance policy of the girl, purchased by her mother, has the date of birth of the girl mentioned as July 1, 1994 and according to this date, the girl was not minor at the time of alleged crime,” he argued in the court.
He further argued that the alleged crime had been committed on August 15, 2013 and taking this date into account, the complainant girl was 20 years old, which meant she was adult and hence the charges under POCSO have been slapped wrongly on him.
He said that despite the difference among various documents of the girl in relation to her age, the prosecution did not bother to get them examined by a competent officer with regard to difference in the date of birth.
It may be recalled that the defence, right from the brining of the trial, has been arguing desperately to get the charges under POCSO Act strike down in order to dilute the case against Asaram but considering the secondary certificate as the base document to ascertain the legal age of any person, sections under POCSO Act have not been struck down.
Meanwhile, the final arguments, which started in the Special court for SC/ST, on October 25 have been continuing with the defence presenting its side.
Source : timesofindia