NIHAR RANJITBHAI BARAD V STATE OF GUJARAT
PRESIDED BY: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SAMIR J. DAVE
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 18985 of 202
Date: 30/11/2022
Facts
The victim in this instance is 12 years old, and the accused is accused of violating Sections 10 and 18 of the POCSO Act as well as Section 354-A of the Penal Code, 1860. Section 10 of POCSO Act deals with punishment for aggravated sexual assault which is not less than 5 years but may extend to 7 years. Section 18 of the POCSO Act states that whoever attempts to commit an offence shall be punished with imprisonment of any description provided for the offence, for a term which may extend to one-half of the imprisonment for life or, as the case may be, one-half of the longest term of imprisonment provided for that offence or with fine or with both. Section 354-A of IPC deals with sexual harassment and punishment for sexual harassment.
The accused submitted an application under Section 439 of CrPC to get standard bail. Section 439 states confers special powers on the Court of Sessions as well as the High Court where either court may direct to release a person on bail.
Judgement
The court held that the POCSO Act was passed to protect children from sexual assault, sexual harassment, and pornographic offences and to establish special tribunals for the trial of such crimes. A clear message that anyone who violates the POCSO Act will be held accountable for their actions must be sent to society at large by imposing a penalty that is proportionate to the act of sexual assault or sexual harassment.
The Court stated that, “Cases of sexual assault or sexual harassment on the children are instances of perverse lust for sex where even innocent children are not spared in pursuit of such debased sexual pleasure. It is to be noted that children are precious human resources of our country; they are the country’s future. The hope of tomorrow rests on them. But unfortunately, in our country, a girl child is in a very vulnerable position. There are different modes of her exploitation, including sexual assault and/or sexual abuse. The exploitation of children in such a manner is a crime against humanity and society. Therefore, the children and more particularly the girl child deserve full protection and need greater care and protection whether in the urban or rural areas. Children need special care and protection and, in such cases, responsibility on the shoulders of the Courts is more onerous to provide proper legal protection to these children. A minor who is subjected to sexual abuse needs to be protected even more than a major victim because a major victim being an adult may still be able to withstand the social rationalization and mental harassment meted out by society, but a minor victim will find it difficult to do so. Most crimes against minor victims are not even reported very often, the perpetrator of the crime is a member of the family of the victim or a close friend. Therefore, the child needs extra protection.”
The Court further observed that the victim was a 12-year-old child, and the offender was a teacher.. Protective behaviour from the teacher is expected. Instead of providing the child with fatherly love, affection, and protection from the vices of society, the accused made her a victim of lust. The victim will be affected psychologically and emotionally for the rest of her life by the accused’s awful actions. When a trustworthy individual commits crimes like this, children begin to view life more pessimistically. In this instance, social values have been compromised and trust has been betrayed. As a result, the accused is not deserving of mercy or compassion.
The Court further opined that practice of amicable settlement is unwarranted when such a serious and heinous crime is committed. It also amounts to tampering with the witness or evidence by the accused. Such a heinous crime affects the entire society, and the relation between ‘Guru’ and ‘Disciples’ should be viewed very strictly.
Hence, the Court held that the prima facie case has been clearly established against the accused and rejected the bail application.
JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY AMIT ARAVIND
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
