The single-judge bench took note of the fact that the mother had simply stated that a compromise had been reached but could not deny that the incident had occurred.(Representative image/Shutterstock)
The court was dealing with a case involving the aggravated penetrative sexual assault of a 14-year-old boy. The judge said that “it is essential to deal with such cases with a heavy hand…to stand firm with the survivor, who cannot stand for himself as a minor, even if his own parents are not standing with him”
The Delhi High Court, in a recent judgment, upheld the conviction of a man under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act and the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for sexual assault of a 14-year-old boy, rejecting the settlement between the survivor’s family and the accused.
A bench of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma emphasized that in cases of such gravity, courts must ensure that justice prevails, irrespective of the compromises made.
The judge opined that it is essential to deal with such cases with a heavy hand. The law has to stand firm with the survivor, who cannot stand for himself as a minor, even if his own parents are not standing with him.
The court was dealing with a case involving the aggravated penetrative sexual assault of a 14-year-old boy. The survivor’s mother had told the trial court that she wanted to close the case as she had arrived at a compromise with the accused.
The single-judge bench took note of the fact that the mother had simply stated that a compromise had been reached but could not deny that the incident had occurred.
The court underscored the significance of delving into the underlying socio-economic factors that may drive individuals to compromise, ensuring that justice is not compromised by hidden influences.
The case involved the aggravated penetrative sexual assault of a minor. Despite the victim’s mother expressing a desire to close the case through a compromise, Justice Sharma highlighted that her illiteracy and the consistent assertion of the incident by the minor victim raised concerns.
The court emphasized the broader societal dynamics that influence legal proceedings, calling for courts to remain vigilant and understanding of the reasons behind compromises.
The court’s duty, according to Justice Sharma, extends beyond determining guilt or innocence, as it serves as a guardian of public trust and confidence.
The judge also expressed concern over the troubling trend of repeated adjournments during trial stages, emphasizing the need for trial courts to consider the victim’s state of mind before granting prolonged adjournments.
The court upheld the conviction, taking into account medical evidence supporting the prosecution’s case and stressing that hyper-technicalities should not obstruct the delivery of justice.
“This Court finds no infirmity with the impugned judgment dated 30.03.2022 and the order on sentence dated 17.11.2022 passed by the learned Trial Court. The conviction of the appellant, Vicky is thereby upheld. Accordingly, the present appeal stands dismissed along with pending applications,” the court ordered.
Source: News18