New Delhi: A court here convicted a man of committing aggravated sexual assault on a three-year-old girl in 2022, noting that sexual abuse of children is rarely reported due to shame, guilt and family honour.
Arguments on the sentence will be heard later.
Additional Sessions Judge Susheel Bala Dagar of the Rohini District Court was hearing a case against the accused, who was charged under penal provisions for rape and under Section 6 (aggravated penetrative sexual assault) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offenses (POCSO).
According to the victim's testimony, the defendant touched his private parts on June 17, 2022.
The court said that merely touching the private parts of the child with sexual intent would be an offense under Section 10 (punishment for aggravated sexual assault) of the POCSO Act along with Indian Penal Code (IPC) offenses for outraging the modesty of the victim to physical contact and advances that involve explicit and unwanted sexual advances and forcing her to be naked.
"The testimony of the prosecution witnesses is found to be trustworthy and the prosecution has succeeded in proving the guilt of the accused and therefore the accused is deemed to have committed the offence," the court said.
In an order passed on July 9, the court rejected the arguments of the defense lawyer regarding the delay in registration of the FIR and said: "It is well known that sexual abuse of children continues to be shrouded in shame, guilt and family honor and Therefore, it is Rarely reported. Furthermore, when the abuser is a known person, it is very difficult to report the matter."
"The normalization of abuse in society has become so endemic that only when abuse is perceived as horrific and serious, involving penetration or poor touching, do children and families alike pay attention and speak up or report it," he added.
The court said that in such a scenario it would have been difficult for the victim's mother to immediately report the incident against the accused, who was a distant relative and a tenant.
"The victim's mother must have been in shock. The prosecution's case cannot be dismissed or disbelieved simply because of the delay in lodging the FIR and the delay in lodging the FIR cannot be used as a ritual formula to doubt the authenticity of the prosecution's evidence," he said.
Regarding the child's statements, the court said: "The content of the child witness's statement recorded above clearly shows that no tutoring took place. There is no reason for a child of 3 years and 11 months to falsely implicate the accused." .
Dismissing the accused's arguments that the medical examination of the child was not carried out, he said that the fact that the mother did not agree to carry out the medical examination of her child did not mean that the incident had not occurred.
"In addition, his testimony categorically explains the reasons for his refusal, since he did not see any injury to his daughter's private part," the court said, adding: "It is not necessary that in all cases of aggravated sexual assault there would be a injury to private parts." `1MNR KSS
K.S.S.
Arguments on the sentence will be heard later.
Additional Sessions Judge Susheel Bala Dagar of the Rohini District Court was hearing a case against the accused, who was charged under penal provisions for rape and under Section 6 (aggravated penetrative sexual assault) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offenses (POCSO).
According to the victim's testimony, the defendant touched his private parts on June 17, 2022.
The court said that merely touching the private parts of the child with sexual intent would be an offense under Section 10 (punishment for aggravated sexual assault) of the POCSO Act along with Indian Penal Code (IPC) offenses for outraging the modesty of the victim to physical contact and advances that involve explicit and unwanted sexual advances and forcing her to be naked.
"The testimony of the prosecution witnesses is found to be trustworthy and the prosecution has succeeded in proving the guilt of the accused and therefore the accused is deemed to have committed the offence," the court said.
In an order passed on July 9, the court rejected the arguments of the defense lawyer regarding the delay in registration of the FIR and said: "It is well known that sexual abuse of children continues to be shrouded in shame, guilt and family honor and Therefore, it is Rarely reported. Furthermore, when the abuser is a known person, it is very difficult to report the matter."
"The normalization of abuse in society has become so endemic that only when abuse is perceived as horrific and serious, involving penetration or poor touching, do children and families alike pay attention and speak up or report it," he added.
The court said that in such a scenario it would have been difficult for the victim's mother to immediately report the incident against the accused, who was a distant relative and a tenant.
"The victim's mother must have been in shock. The prosecution's case cannot be dismissed or disbelieved simply because of the delay in lodging the FIR and the delay in lodging the FIR cannot be used as a ritual formula to doubt the authenticity of the prosecution's evidence," he said.
Regarding the child's statements, the court said: "The content of the child witness's statement recorded above clearly shows that no tutoring took place. There is no reason for a child of 3 years and 11 months to falsely implicate the accused." .
Dismissing the accused's arguments that the medical examination of the child was not carried out, he said that the fact that the mother did not agree to carry out the medical examination of her child did not mean that the incident had not occurred.
"In addition, his testimony categorically explains the reasons for his refusal, since he did not see any injury to his daughter's private part," the court said, adding: "It is not necessary that in all cases of aggravated sexual assault there would be a injury to private parts." `1MNR KSS
K.S.S.