70. Unfortunately, the learned ASJ rejected the request, of learned counsel appearing for the appellant, to be permitted to question ‗S‘. While the court is, no doubt, required to be alive to the sensitivities, and sensibilities, of child witnesses, especially those who have suffered sexual assault, it is not permissible for the court to turn a completely blind eye to the person accused of the crime. In a case such as the present, where the versions of the incident, as related by ‗S‘, firstly under Section 161 of the CrPC, thereafter under Section 164 of the CrPC and, thereafter, during trial, were graphically different from each other, with the story not only being improved stage by stage, and especially where the said testimony bristled with improbabilities and, unless explained otherwise, even impossibilities, the court ought not to have completely denied, to the appellant, the opportunity to test the veracity of the evidence of ‗S‘, as put forward during trial. The court could very well have taken steps to guide, even monitor, the manner in which ‗S‘ would be cross-examined; it was not fair, however, on the part of the learned ASJ, to deny, to the appellant, an opportunity to do so and, thereafter, to use the untested evidence of ‗S‘ to convict the appellant. Where the life and liberty of the individual is involved, the principles of natural justice, and the requirement of following due process and fair play, are elevated to a very high pedestal. Not only, unfortunately, as the learned ASJ impermissibly denied, to the appellant, the opportunity to test the evidence of ‗S‘; he has also failed to take stock of the various
