Add thelocalreport.in As A Trusted Source
Justice Neena Bansal Krishna delivered the verdict while dismissing the appeal of a man against his conviction and sentence under Section 10 of POCSO (punishment for aggravated sexual harassment) for exposing his private parts to a girl of about four years and touching her.
Under POCSO, sexual assault on a child below twelve years of age amounts to aggravated sexual assault.
The appellant, who was a tenant in the house of the minor, was convicted by the trial court in July 2024 and consequently sentenced to seven years of rigorous imprisonment.
The incident took place in June 2022.
The court said, “Touching the private part of a small child with sexual intent amounts to aggravated sexual assault and, therefore, an offense under Section 10 POCSO Act has been established.”
“There is no merit in the appeal, which is dismissed with pending applications, if any,” she ordered.
Read also, JNU calls anti-Modi, anti-Shah slogans ‘provocative’, demands FIR after campus protest
In the judgment passed on January 5, the court rejected the accused’s claim that the victim was being tutored and the lack of evidence against him, as it held that the core allegation of sexual harassment remained consistent in the victim’s testimony and minor changes in expression did not affect her credibility.
It was also observed that as per the legal mandate, the counseling by the DCW counselor cannot be called tuition, as it was done to help the survivor, who was three years and 11 months old at the time of the incident, to deal with the trauma.
The court said, “The complete details of the incident, as well as the complete presence of the appellant, especially when the child narrated the incident to his mother and also that he himself reached the police station before the complainant and the family arrived, show the veracity of the testimony of the child and his mother.”
The court also refused to accept the accused’s defense of delay in filing the FIR, holding that the delay was adequately explained and could not be held fatal as it was “natural” for the minor’s mother to wait for her husband’s return from another city before contacting the police.
It agreed with the trial court’s observations on the issue of sexual abuse of children due to shame, guilt and family honour, especially when the abuser was a known person.
It states that the normalization of abuse is so endemic in society that only when the abuse is considered egregious and serious, involving penetration or bad touching, do both children and families pay attention and speak up.
However, in appeal the Court quashed the conviction and sentence of the Appellant for certain offenses under the Indian Penal Code such as sexual assault as no charge was framed for the same.