2022 Supreme(SC) 116

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital)
M. R. Shah, B.V. Nagarathna, JJ.
Nawabuddin – Appellant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 144 of 2022
Decided On : 08-02-2022

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Any act of sexual assault or sexual harassment to children should be viewed very seriously.
(2) Child needs extra protection – No leniency can be shown to an accused who has committed offences under POCSO Act, 2012 and particularly when same is proved by adequate evidence before a court of law.

Headnote:

(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 376(2)(i) – Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012 – Section 5/6 – Sexual assault on minor girl – Life sentence – There are concurrent findings recorded by both Courts below, recorded on appreciation of evidence on record to the effect that accused tried to commit offence of rape on victim girl aged four years – Though other witnesses who seem to have been won over might not have supported case of prosecution, no reason to doubt deposition of Doctor who is an independent witness – Both, Trial Court as well as High Court have rightly convicted accused for offences under Section 5 of POCSO Act punishable under Section 6 of POCSO Act. (Paras 7 and 8)

(B) Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012 – Section 5/6 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 376(2)(i) – Constitution of India – Articles 15 and 39 – Sexual assault on minor girl – Life sentence – Any act of sexual assault or sexual harassment to children should be viewed very seriously and all such offences of sexual assault, sexual harassment on children have to be dealt with in a stringent manner and no leniency should be shown to a person who has committed offence under POCSO Act – By awarding a suitable punishment commensurate with act of sexual assault, sexual harassment, a message must be conveyed to society at large that, if anybody commits any offence under POCSO Act of sexual assault, sexual harassment or use of children for pornographic purposes they shall be punished suitably and no leniency shall be shown to them – Cases of sexual assault or sexual harassment on children are instances of perverse lust for sex where even innocent children are not spared in pursuit of such debased sexual pleasure – Children are precious human resources of our country – They are country’s future – Hope of tomorrow rests on them – Exploitation of children in such a manner is a crime against humanity and society – Children and more particularly girl child deserve full protection and need greater care and protection whether in urban or rural areas – Most crimes against minor victims are not even reported as very often, perpetrator of crime is a member of family of victim or a close friend – Child needs extra protection – No leniency can be shown to an accused who has committed offences under POCSO Act, 2012 and particularly when same is proved by adequate evidence before a court of law – In present case accused was aged approximately 65 years of age at the time of commission of offence – He was a neighbour of victim girl – He took advantage of absence of her parents, when her mother went to fetch water and her father had gone to work – He is found to have committed aggravated penetrative sexual assault on a girl child aged four years, which demonstrates mental state or mindset of accused – Accused-appellant was neighbour – Accused instead of showing fatherly love, affection and protection to child against evils of society, rather made her victim of lust – It is a case where trust has been betrayed and social values are impaired – Accused as such does not deserve any sympathy and/or any leniency – Considering such mitigating circumstances, if life sentence is converted to fifteen years RI and fine imposed by Trial Court confirmed by High Court to be maintained, it can be said to be an adequate punishment commensurate with offence committed by accused – Sentence accordingly modified. (Paras 10, 10.1 and 11)

Facts of the case:

Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 22.08.2019 passed by the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital in Criminal Appeal No. 280 of 2018 by which the High Court has dismissed said appeal preferred by the accused-appellant herein and has confirmed the conviction of the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 376(2)(i) of IPC and Section 5/6 of the Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012 original accused has preferred the present appeal.

Findings of Court:

Accused was aged approximately 65 years of age at the time of commission of offence. He was a neighbour of the victim girl. He took advantage of the absence of her parents, when her mother went to fetch water and her father had gone to work. He is found to have committed aggravated penetrative sexual assault on a girl child aged four years, which demonstrates the mental state or mindset of the accused. As a neighbour, in fact, it was the duty of the accused to protect the victim girl when alone rather than exploiting her innocence and vulnerability.

Result : Appeal Partly allowed.