Sexual Offences Against Children Must Be Dealt In Stringent Manner; No Leniency Should Be Shown To POCSO Offenders: Chhattisgarh High Court
The Chhattisgarh High Court upheld the conviction of the accused persons who were convicted for the offence under Section 6 of the POCSO Act.
Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha, Justice Bibhu Datta Guru, Chhattisgarh High Court
The Chhattisgarh High Court emphasized that the sexual offences against children must be dealt in a stringent manner and no leniency should be shown to a person committing offence under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act).
The Court emphasized thus in a batch of Criminal Appeals preferred against the Judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ), by which the accused persons were convicted for the offence under Section 6 of the POCSO Act and were sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for 20 years along with a fine of Rs. 5,000/-.
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Bibhu Datta Guru observed, “Any act of sexual assault or sexual harassment to the children should be viewed very seriously and all such offences of sexual assault, sexual harassment on the children have to be dealt with in a stringent manner and no leniency should be shown to a person who has committed the offence under the POCSO Act.”
The Bench remarked that it is an irony that while we are celebrating women's rights in all spheres, we show little or no concern for her honour.
Advocates R.S. Patel, Pravin Kumar Tulsyan, and Tarendra Kumar Jha appeared for the Appellants/Accused while Advocate (Panel Lawyer) Hariom Rai appeared for the Respondent/State.
Brief Facts
As per the prosecution case, the victim appeared at the police station in 2019 and lodged a report that one marriage was taking place in her village in which ‘baraatis’ had come from another village and at around 11:00 p.m., she and her friend went to the field to use the bathroom due to the crowd in the marriage hall. She and her friend were a little distance away, when 4 boys allegedly gagged the victim and dragged her to a field ahead of the farm and forcibly did wrong things (physical intercourse) with her and threatened to kill her.
She saw the faces of the boys with the light of their mobile torch, then she told her family members about the entire incident. The victim went to a village with her family members and villagers and identified those people. Resultantly, a crime under Sections 376 (D), 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and Section 4 of the POCSO Act was registered against the accused persons including the child in conflict with law. The Trial Court convicted the Appellants-accused and sentenced them. Being aggrieved, they were before the High Court.
Reasoning
The High Court in view of the above facts, noted, “… it cannot be said that the victim's age was 18 years or more at the time of the incident. As a result, it is determined that the victim was a minor at the time of the incident, being 13 years old, which is covered under Section 2 (d) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act. The child fell within the category of "child" as defined. Therefore, the essential ingredient of commission of the offence under Section 6 of the POCSO Act is attracted against the accused.”
The Court said that the evidence of the medical witness confirms that sexual intercourse had taken place with the victim within a period of 24 hours from her examination.
“Crime against women in general and rape in particular is on the increase. … It is a sad reflection on the attitude of indifference of the society towards the violation of human dignity of the victims of sex crimes. We must remember that a rapist not only violates the victim's privacy and personal integrity, but inevitably causes serious psychological as well as physical harm in the process. Rape is not merely a physical assault -- it is often destructive of the whole personality of the victim”, it added.
The Court was of the view that a prosecutrix of a sex-offence cannot be put on par with an accomplice and she is in fact a victim of the crime.
“The Evidence Act nowhere says that her evidence cannot be accepted unless it is corroborated in material particulars. She is undoubtedly a competent witness under Section 118 and her evidence must receive the same weight as is attached to an injured in cases of physical violence. The same degree of care and caution must attach in the evaluation of her evidence as in the case of an injured complainant or witness and no more”, it further observed.
The Court said that the Court must be conscious of the fact that it is dealing with the evidence of a person who is interested in the outcome of the charge levelled by her.
“If the totality of the circumstances appearing on the record of the case discloses that the prosecutrix does not have a strong motive to falsely involve the person charged, the Court should ordinarily have no hesitation in accepting her evidence”, it also noted.
The Court held that the prosecution has been able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that on the date of the incident, the prosecutrix was below 18 years of age and fell in the category of ‘child’ and the accused and the child in conflict with law, committed aggravated penetrative sexual assault by gang-raping the minor victim, who was below 16 years of age, in turns, without her will and consent.
“In the result, this Court comes to the conclusion that the prosecution has succeeded in proving its case beyond all reasonable doubts against the appellants. The conviction and sentence as awarded by the trial court to the appellants is hereby upheld”, it concluded.
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the Appeals and upheld the conviction.
Cause Title- Panku Kashyap v. State of Chhattisgarh (Neutral Citation: 2025:CGHC:23000-DB)
