The Sessions Court had convicted Jabbar in 2013 for sodomizing( to perform unnatural or abnormal sexual intercourse on a person) a 6- year-old boy thereby committing ‘aggravated penetrative sexual assault’ on the child. Jabbar was found guilty under Section 6 of the POSCO Act, 2012 sentencing him to imprisonment for life along with Rs. 5000 fine.
FACTUAL SYNOPSIS OF THE CASE:
As per the testimony of the victim ‘S’ that was recorded under Section
164, Cr.P.C. by the Metropolitan Magistrate, S went to do latrine in the forest nearby his home, then Jabbar picked him up, removed the 6-year-Old’s clothes and performing unnatural sexual assault upon him thus leading to pain in the anal region of the victim. Jabbar was correctly identified by the victim. The medical examination, on two different occasions confirmed the occurrence of sodomy upon the Victim.
Jabbar, when questioned under Section 313 of the CrPC, 1973, submitted before the Court that he is innocent and false evidences were advanced against him. The case against him is false and fabricated; he did not present any defense evidence to support his arguments.
The Sessions Court held Jabbar guilty and relied on the testimonies of the Witnesses and the Medical examination that were of evidentiary value and inspired judicial confidence insisting that there was no reason that a 6-year-old would implicate an innocent person for having committed an offense against him. Any claim for leniency was rejected as a result of the cruel and insensitive nature of the offense committed implied by the fact that tenderness persisted in the anal region of the victim even after one and a half month of the commission of the crime.
APPEAL TO HIGH COURT:
Jabbar appealed in the Hon’ble Delhi High Court against his conviction by the Sessions Court. His counsel argued that there were discrepancies and inconsistencies in the statements of witnesses. He also emphasized that the victim complained only of pain and not sodomy, the area where the crime was alleged to have taken place was a well lit area ruling out its occurrence without public objectioning to the same. The counsel also prayed for the reduction of sentence.
The court in “Eera through Dr. Manjula Krippendorf v. State (NCT of Delhi)” (2017) 15 SCC 133 observed on the POSCO Act, 2012:
“… the very purpose of bringing a legislation of the present nature is to protect the children from the sexual assault, harassment and exploitation, and to secure the best interest of the child…the tender age of children is not abused and their childhood is protected against exploitation and they are given facilities to develop in a healthy manner and in conditions of freedom and dignity…Dignity of the child has been laid immense emphasis in the scheme of legislation…”
Alice Miller, a Swiss psychologist, speaking about child abuse has said:
“Child abuse damages a person for life and that damage is in no way diminished by the ignorance of the perpetrator. It is only with the uncovering of the complete truth as it affects all those involved that a genuinely viable solution can be found to the dangers of child abuse.”
HIGH COURT’S RULING:
The High Court uphold the decision of the Trial Court relying on the arguments advanced by the Sessions Court. The Court further observed:
“There is no reason to believe that the offense committed by the appellant on “S‘ was not a one-off, or that, having tasted blood as it were, he would continue to repeat such offenses in future. In these circumstances, we are of the view that a sufficiently long period of incarceration would be sufficient to chasten the appellant, and deter him from contemplating the commission of such deviant acts in future.”
However, the Court partly allowed the appeal by reducing the sentence of the appellant to 15 year’s rigorous punishment.The Court remarked:
“The “quality of mercy”, unstrained, must always temper the hard scales of the law, if a just balance is to be achieved.”
This article is written by Gunjeet Singh Bagga.
You must log in to post a comment.