The recent ruling by the Delhi High Court emphasized the necessity of supporting minor victims, even if their own parents fail to stand by them. In upholding a man’s conviction for sexually assaulting a minor boy, the court highlighted the imperative for the law to steadfastly protect those who cannot advocate for themselves, particularly minors.
The single-headed bench of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma, reaffirmed a trial court's decision to convict a man for sexually assaulting a 14-year-old boy back in 2014. The conviction was made under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, leading to a sentence of 10 years of rigorous imprisonment for the perpetrator. This ruling was outlined in an order dated November 17, which has recently become available for public review.
The high court opined that “it is essential to deal with such cases with a heavy hand”.
Justice Sharma noted a significant aspect in the case where the mother of the minor victim testified in front of the trial court. She mentioned having settled the matter with the accused, indicating her reluctance to pursue the case any further. This added a unique dimension to the proceedings, highlighting the challenges posed by the victim's family's stance in the legal process.
On this point, the high court said, “The Courts must remain alert towards the unwritten hindrances, which speak of its commitment to uncovering the actual facts and developments of a case. In doing so, it ensures that justice is not compromised by hidden influences or external pressures”.
The high court took note of the consistency in the minor boy's statements regarding the accused engaging in "carnal intercourse" with him. This consistency was evident across multiple instances: from his initial statement to the police, his testimony recorded before the Magistrate, and throughout his examination-in-chief, remaining firm even during cross-examination. This consistent narrative emphasized the reliability and persistence of the victim's account.
Justice Sharma highlighted a crucial timeline in the case, noting that the minor boy changed his testimony and withdrew from his earlier statements only after a delay of approximately eight months, coinciding with the deferral of the cross-examination. Additionally, the mother, in her testimony, indicated that she had reached a compromise with the accused, shedding light on the circumstances surrounding the alteration in the minor boy's statements.
The high court clarified that the mother's testimony indicated her decision to compromise with the accused and refrain from further legal action. Her acknowledgment of being illiterate didn't negate the occurrence of the incident but rather implied her acceptance of a compromise, suggesting the incident indeed occurred. This acknowledgment of a compromise didn't refute the occurrence of the incident but rather indicated a settlement outside the legal proceedings.
“In case no such incident would have taken place, where was the question of compromise. The Courts, thus, have to delve in for a deeper understanding into the underlying reasons for such compromises. Going beyond the surface of the matter, the Courts must recognise the need to understand the socio-economic context that may drive individuals to make choices that compromise their pursuit of justice,” the Delhi High Court underscored.
The court highlighted its concern regarding a concerning pattern where repeated adjournments were granted for the cross-examination of victims, extending to later dates after partial cross-examination or examination-in-chief had been recorded by the trial court. It referenced observations made by the Supreme Court in several cases, emphasizing that courts shouldn't routinely adjourn cases for cross-examination solely based on the request of the accused's counsel. This trend raised alarm due to its potential impact on the timely and effective resolution of cases involving victim testimonies.
