ABU DHABI // A school janitor was chosen as a scapegoat to take the responsibility for molesting a seven-year-old girl, the Appeals Court heard on Sunday.
I K was charged with molestation even though none of his DNA was found on the victim’s body and none of hers was found on his.
The forensics report says the girl’s private parts were “used” previously a number of times.
His defence attorney said this proved that his client was a scapegoat to hide the identity of the real attacker.
The DNA expert who testified in the previous hearing said none of the janitors who were named suspects in the case had a DNA link to the victim.
“The forensics report screams the defendant is innocent. Bring me the evidence that proves I K is the one who did it,” said the lawyer.
“Why accuse Baboo out of all people?” asked chief justice Dr Khairi Al Kabbash, “There were other office boys as well.”
“They took them all, but he is the one who was chosen out of them,” replied the lawyer.
He added that the victim’s statements changed every time, and contradicted before and after the forensics results came out.
“It was clear that someone was dictating to her what to say.”
“The forensics report clearly states the girl was used before from the front and the back [...] by whom we do not know.”
“And none of the prosecution witnesses were present during the incident. They said her underwear contained blood and the report says there was no blood from anyone present at the school.”
The lawyer representing the victim said the victim was hurting during the rape so she scratched I K’s back because she could not reach his face. I K later admitted to police the scratches were caused by the victim.
Defence argued that the report said the scars on I K’s back were caused by a hard object, “Is it logical that a seven year old girl could have caused them?”
The victim’s lawyer also said that on the day of the incident the teacher wrote in her school diary that the victim’s eyes should be checked because she was not seeing the blackboard clearly, arguing that she was under severe shock and therefore lost the ability to see clearly and focus.
Defense argued back that it was impossible for a child suffering a bleeding injury not to scream, cry or show signs of the attack. The teacher said when she noticed that the child was not seeing clearly would have noticed the blood or anything unusual with the girl.
“The teacher is a female and a mother and she would have noticed and showed concern [...] and the blood trail would have shown on her (the girl’s) clothes.”
The victim’s lawyer said the girl returned home that day in a terrified state and lay on the floor weeping. When her aunt started to investigate what was wrong she started to undress her she found blood and a slime-like substance, so she bathed her.
“The aunt did not know there will be a case and forensics test, so unknowingly she washed her.”
As for the defendant, he obviously washed up too to hide the evidence, and cleaned the kitchen as it was part of his job.
The court asked I K if he was married and when the last time he visited his family was.
He said he went to visit them four months before the incident. He has a wife and three daughters and grandchildren; one of his daughters got married on Saturday.
hdajani@thenational.ae
