New Delhi: Shaming a victim and her family should not be allowed to be a tool of legal strategy in cases of sexual crimes against minors as it deters them from reporting such crimes to the authorities, the Delhi High Court has said.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma, who upheld the three-year jail term awarded to a house help for secretly recording objectionable videos of his employer's minor daughter on his mobile phone, advised against taking a "lenient view" in such cases.
He asserted that judicial pronouncements recognizing the profound impact of voyeurism put a "healing balm" on the wounds of victims of such harassment and assault.
The defendant challenged his conviction by the trial court in an appeal to the higher court on several grounds, including that the videos were prepared and placed by the victim's father because he did not want to pay his salary.
Calling the argument "insensitive" and "unthinkable", Justice Sharma said the court must uphold the dignity and rights of not only child victims but also their families, and that the justice system has the primary duty to protect the most vulnerable, particularly children. , from any form of secondary trauma caused by unfair accusations or degrading narratives.
"Therefore, the Court must take a firm stance against any attempt to defame the character of child victims or use the shame of the victim and the shame of the victim's family as tools and pawns in legal strategies... No Shaming of the victim and shaming of the victim's family should be allowed as it will be a deterrent and an obstacle for real victims to report such crimes to the authorities," the court said in its ruling handed down on 1 July.
The court held that the material on record and the testimonies of the witnesses clearly established the prosecution's case that the appellant had made three objectionable videos of the victim and the trial court correctly convicted him under Sections 354C (Voyeurism) and 509. (Word, gesture or act intended to insult modesty) IPC, and under Section 12 (Punishment for sexual harassment) of the POCSO Act.
The court also refused to reduce the three-year prison sentence, saying that if the accused was a 22-year-old at the time of the incident, the victim was also 17 when he suffered "lifelong trauma." within the safety and privacy of his own home.
"The appellant had stealthily recorded videos, an act beyond the imagination or expectation of the victim girl or her family. This trauma severely affected her ability to concentrate on her studies and career, which ultimately led her to leave the country. to pursue higher education since she could not continue in the same place where she had been a victim of sexual harassment," the court noted.
The court said it "shocks to think" whether the videos were shared by the appellant or were otherwise misused by him.
"Taking a lenient stance in such cases will also discourage the real victims of such crimes. The judiciary helps establish social norms and expectations regarding the protection of children by consistently condemning voyeuristic acts and emphasizing the sanctity of privacy and dignity of a child," the court said in dismissing the defendant's appeal.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma, who upheld the three-year jail term awarded to a house help for secretly recording objectionable videos of his employer's minor daughter on his mobile phone, advised against taking a "lenient view" in such cases.
He asserted that judicial pronouncements recognizing the profound impact of voyeurism put a "healing balm" on the wounds of victims of such harassment and assault.
The defendant challenged his conviction by the trial court in an appeal to the higher court on several grounds, including that the videos were prepared and placed by the victim's father because he did not want to pay his salary.
Calling the argument "insensitive" and "unthinkable", Justice Sharma said the court must uphold the dignity and rights of not only child victims but also their families, and that the justice system has the primary duty to protect the most vulnerable, particularly children. , from any form of secondary trauma caused by unfair accusations or degrading narratives.
"Therefore, the Court must take a firm stance against any attempt to defame the character of child victims or use the shame of the victim and the shame of the victim's family as tools and pawns in legal strategies... No Shaming of the victim and shaming of the victim's family should be allowed as it will be a deterrent and an obstacle for real victims to report such crimes to the authorities," the court said in its ruling handed down on 1 July.
The court held that the material on record and the testimonies of the witnesses clearly established the prosecution's case that the appellant had made three objectionable videos of the victim and the trial court correctly convicted him under Sections 354C (Voyeurism) and 509. (Word, gesture or act intended to insult modesty) IPC, and under Section 12 (Punishment for sexual harassment) of the POCSO Act.
The court also refused to reduce the three-year prison sentence, saying that if the accused was a 22-year-old at the time of the incident, the victim was also 17 when he suffered "lifelong trauma." within the safety and privacy of his own home.
"The appellant had stealthily recorded videos, an act beyond the imagination or expectation of the victim girl or her family. This trauma severely affected her ability to concentrate on her studies and career, which ultimately led her to leave the country. to pursue higher education since she could not continue in the same place where she had been a victim of sexual harassment," the court noted.
The court said it "shocks to think" whether the videos were shared by the appellant or were otherwise misused by him.
"Taking a lenient stance in such cases will also discourage the real victims of such crimes. The judiciary helps establish social norms and expectations regarding the protection of children by consistently condemning voyeuristic acts and emphasizing the sanctity of privacy and dignity of a child," the court said in dismissing the defendant's appeal.
