Courts in Mumbai and Pune made two different decisions. One man is now free. Another man must stay in prison for his whole life.

孟買與浦那的法院做出了兩個不同的決定。其中一名男子現在獲釋，而另一名男子則必須終身監禁。

In the first case, a man was accused of hurting a 14-year-old boy in 2013. The court said the man is not guilty. The police did not have good digital evidence. Also, the victim's story had mistakes.

在第一起案件中，一名男子被指控在2013年傷害一名14歲男孩。法院判定該男子無罪。警方沒有充分的數位證據。此外，受害者的陳述存在錯誤。

In the second case, a father hurt his 17-year-old daughter in 2015. The father said the girl lied. He said she did not tell a shopkeeper about the crime immediately.

在第二起案件中，一名父親在2015年傷害其17歲女兒。父親聲稱女兒撒謊，並表示她沒有立即向店主告知此犯罪行為。

The court did not believe the father. The court said the girl was scared to tell a stranger. The girl told the same story many times. The court kept the father in prison.

法院不相信父親。法院表示女孩是因為恐懼才不敢告訴陌生人。女孩多次陳述的內容一致。法院決定將父親繼續關押在監獄中。

These cases show that courts need strong proof and true stories to make a decision.

這些案件顯示法院需要強而有力的證據與真實的陳述才能做出決定。

Recent court rulings in Mumbai and Pune have led to two different results: one defendant was found not guilty, while another had a life sentence confirmed in separate cases involving the POCSO Act.

孟買與浦那最近的法院裁決導向了兩個不同的結果：在兩宗涉及 POCSO 法案的獨立案件中，一名被告被裁定無罪，而另一名被告則被維持終身監禁。

In the first case, a special POCSO court acquitted a 31-year-old man regarding accusations from 2013. The prosecution asserted that the man and five minors had assaulted a 14-year-old boy and filmed the incident without permission. However, the court decided that there was not enough evidence for a conviction. Specifically, the digital evidence was not handled correctly, making it unacceptable in court. Furthermore, the court noted that the police report was filed fifteen days late and that the victim's testimony was inconsistent and lacked supporting evidence.

在第一宗案件中，一個 POCSO 特別法院宣判一名 31 歲男子就 2013 年的指控無罪。控方主張該男子與五名未成年人襲擊了一名 14 歲男孩，並在未經許可的情況下將過程拍攝下來。然而，法院認定沒有足夠證據定罪。具體而言，數位證據處理不正確，導致在法院中不可被接納。此外，法院指出警方報告延遲了 15 天才提交，且受害者的證詞不一致且缺乏支持證據。

In contrast, the Bombay High Court upheld the life sentence of a man who raped his 17-year-old daughter in 2015. The defense argued that the victim was not credible because she did not tell a local shopkeeper about the incident immediately. However, the court rejected this argument, stating that a victim of family abuse would logically avoid telling a stranger. The judges found the victim's detailed account to be consistent and supported by other family members. Consequently, the court dismissed the father's claim that his wife had conspired to frame him, as there was no evidence to support this.

相反地，孟買高等法院維持了一名於 2015 年強姦 17 歲女兒的男子的終身監禁判決。辯方主張受害者不可信，因為她並未立即將事件告知當地店主。然而，法院駁回了這一論點，指出家庭虐待的受害者在邏輯上會避免告知陌生人。法官認定受害者的詳細描述是一致的，且有其他家庭成員的支持。因此，法院駁回了父親聲稱其妻子陰謀陷害他的主張，因為沒有證據支持此說法。

These two cases highlight how important it is to have reliable evidence and a careful evaluation of victim testimony to reach a legal decision under the POCSO Act.

這兩宗案件凸顯了在 POCSO 法案下，要做出法律決定，擁有可靠證據與仔細評估受害者的證詞是多麼重要。

Recent rulings by the judiciary in Mumbai and Pune have resulted in the acquittal of one defendant and the affirmation of a life sentence for another in separate cases involving the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act.

孟買與浦那近期由司法部門作出的裁決，在兩起涉及《保護兒童免受性犯罪法》（POCSO Act）的獨立案件中，結果為一名被告獲判無罪，另一名則被維持終身監禁。

In the first instance, a special POCSO court acquitted a 31-year-old male regarding allegations originating in 2013. The prosecution asserted that the defendant, alongside five juveniles, had subjected a 14-year-old male to physical and sexual assault and unauthorized filming. However, the court determined that the evidentiary threshold for conviction was not met. Specifically, the failure to maintain a rigorous chain of custody for electronic evidence and the absence of hash value calculations rendered the digital proofs inadmissible. Furthermore, the court noted a fifteen-day latency in the filing of the First Information Report (FIR) and observed that the victim's testimony contained material discrepancies and lacked corroboration, as the defendant was neither visible nor audible in the submitted video evidence.

在第一起案件中，一個 POCSO 特別法庭就 2013 年的指控判決一名 31 歲男性無罪。檢方主張被告與五名青少年共同對一名 14 歲男性進行肢體與性侵害，並進行非法拍攝。然而，法院認定證據未達到定罪的門檻。具體而言，由於電子證據未能維持嚴格的保管鏈且缺乏雜湊值（hash value）計算，導致數位證據不被採信。此外，法院注意到提交初步調查報告（FIR）延遲了 15 天，並觀察到受害者的證詞存在重大分歧且缺乏佐證，因為在提交的影片證據中，被告既不可見亦不可聞。

Conversely, the Bombay High Court upheld the life imprisonment of a male convicted of raping his 17-year-old daughter in 2015. The defense contended that the victim's failure to disclose the incident to a third-party shopkeeper immediately following the event undermined the credibility of her testimony. The court rejected this hypothesis, positing that the familial nature of the offense would logically preclude immediate disclosure to a stranger. The judiciary found the victim's detailed account to be consistent with her magistrate statements and corroborated by familial testimony. The court further dismissed the defendant's claim of a conspiracy involving his spouse, citing a lack of evidence to support the assertion of a false implication.

相反地，孟買高等法院維持了一名男性因 2015 年強姦其 17 歲女兒而被判處終身監禁的原判。辯方主張受害者在事發後未立即向第三方店主披露，這削弱了其證詞的可信度。法院駁回了此項假設，認為由於該犯罪屬於家庭內部性質，邏輯上會排除立即向陌生人披露的可能性。法院發現受害者詳細的陳述與其在治安法官前的陳述一致，並得到家族成員證詞的佐證。法院進一步駁回了被告關於其配偶參與陰謀的說法，理由是缺乏證據支持被誣陷的主張。

The two cases illustrate the critical role of evidentiary integrity and the judicial evaluation of victim testimony in determining legal outcomes under the POCSO Act.

這兩起案件說明了在 POCSO 法案下，證據的完整性以及法院對受害者證詞的評估，在決定法律結果中起著至關重要的作用。