Sexual crimes against kids impact society, observes HC

Sexual crimes against kids impact society, observes HC

Slams Father For Entering Into Compromise In Sodomy Case

Abhinav.Garg@timesgroup.com

New Delhi: 31.01.2021 

At a time when a few controversial verdicts have been given in cases of sexual offences against children, Delhi High Court has set the record straight. Observing that sexual crimes against children shock the value system and have a serious impact on the society, the court on Friday cleared decks for trial of a man who sodomised a 7-year-old boy.

Justice Subramonium Prasad highlighted that the POCSO Act was meant to “provide protection to children from sexual assault and harassment, and for safeguarding the interest and wellbeing of children.”

The court was aghast to come across a joint plea by the father of the survivor and the accused saying they had reached a compromise, and that the FIR should be quashed. Tossing out the plea, the court noted, “The father of the child cannot be permitted to settle the dispute with the accused. He is not the victim, and the courts have to safeguard and protect the interest of children against onslaught by bad forces.”

The bench added that it could not lose sight of the fact that the accused was being prosecuted for an offence that shook the value system of the society. “This is not a matter that can be permitted to be settled as a compoundable minor offence. Deterrence to others committing similar offences is a must, and they cannot get a signal that anything and everything can be compromised,” it observed.

Justice Prasad said he was refraining from slapping costs on the parties for seeking to compromise such a heinous offence and observed, “The survivor is a child of seven years. The offence alleged against the petitioner is grave. The POCSO Act was enacted only because sexual offences against children were not being adequately addressed by the existing laws... permitting such offences to be compromised and quashing FIRs will not secure the interest of justice.”

The court underlined that the child was subjected to penetrative sexual assault resulting in FIR under not just POCSO Act, but also IPC Section 377, which showed the “mental depravity of the offender, and cannot be said to be private in nature. It has serious impact on the society.”

The court said it could not permit quashing of the FIR because the father of the child had decided to enter into a compromise with the accused.

According to the complaint by the father, a mason, on November 11, 2019, he returned home after work at 8pm and found his son crying. When questioned, his son told him that after he left for work, the accused, who stays in the same building, came and sodomised him.

THE HIGH COURT BENCH SAYS

The father of the child cannot be permitted to settle the dispute with the accused. He is not the victim, and the courts have to safeguard and protect the interest of children against onslaught by bad forces