Crime against children is crime against society: HC

NT Correspondent

Bengaluru: Overturning the order of acquittal of a 28 yearold, the High Court of Karnataka has sentenced him in a Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act case saying “The crime of penetrative sexual assault on children is not only an offence against child, but the offence against the entire society.”

The accused had subsequently married the victim and they had a child as well. But the HC said the accused did not deserve any leniency. Sentencing the accused to 7 years of rigorous imprisionment under Section 4 of the POCSO Act, 7 years under Section 376 (Rape) of the Indian Penal Code and 3 years imprisonment under Section 366 (Kidnapping) of IPC, the HC said “the Court has no discretion to reduce the sentence below 7 years.”

The State had approached the High Court against the 2016 order of the Trial Court which had acquitted the accused, a resident of Hunsur in Mysuru. The victim was living with her widowed mother. She was allegedly lured with love and promise of love by a neighbor who was 27 years old in June 2013. She was taken to Dharmasthala and Kukke Subramanya and returned to his home in the village. The crime was committed in the said house.

After a complaint by the victim’s mother the police conducted the investigation and filed a charge sheet in the trial court. The Trial Court held that there was no proof of kidnapping and sexual assault and that the victim was 16-17 years of age. It acquitted the accused. The HC division bench of Justice KS Mudagal and Justice Rajendra Badamikar in their judgement however said the Trial Court had made a mistake.

“The finding of the trial Court that kidnapping and sexual assault were not proved are contrary to the evidence on record and against the spirit and object of Sections 4, 6, 29 and 30 of the POCSO Act and the judgements of the Supreme Court. Such erroneous finding of the trial Court has led to miscarriage of justice as it is the duty of the Society to protect the children from the perpetrators of such crime,” it said.

Sentencing the accused for the crimes, the HC also noted, “It is material to note that the victim at the time of the incident was aged hardly 14 years, whereas the accused who was her neighbor was aged 27 years which was almost double her age. Under such circumstances, even if PW 1 (victim) agrees to accompany him, he had the legal duty of informing PWs 2 and 8, her guardians, which he had not done.”