Latest News
Back
Document:
Person cannot be charged with section 12 of the POCSO Act if the person has not made a mention of any act of sexual intent or assault: Delhi HC
On 6/11/2019, the Delhi HC decided to dismiss a criminal revision petition filed by the State. Previously , the trial court had discharged the accused-respondent from the punishable offence as stated under Section 12 (prevention from sexual harassment) of the Prevention of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO).
The mother of a minor victim lodged an FIR stating that on 11/02/2019, the accused-respondent asked three minor girls to accompany him to his room after offering them some money. The minor victim recounted that the accused came and rubbed his hand over her face and said “do rupees doonga, mere ghar chal, panch minute ki baat hai.” However, none of the girls accompanied him. The Trial Court, after contemplation, discharged the accused. Aggrieved thereby, Hiren Sharma, APP, representing the State moved the Delhi HC with an instant revision petition.
The Delhi HC headed by Mr. Justice Suresh Kumar Kait recorded that statement furnished by the minor victim and the complainant under Section 164 CrPC did not reflect the committing of any sexually offensive act by the accused. The Hon’ble Judge further observed that the crux of Section 12 of the POCSO Act, i.e. sexual intent, was missing in the act of the respondent. Hence, the prima facie charge of sexual harassment could not be held against the accused.
“The fact remains that the victim did not mention any act of sexual assault or sexual intent, therefore, I find no illegality or perversity in the order passed by the learned Trial Judge thereby discharging the respondent. Finding no merits in the petition, the same is accordingly dismissed along with the pending application.”
The Delhi HC upheld the order passed by the Trial Court and stated that the sentence recorded by the minor victim does not carry any hints of sexually offensive behavior. Thus the High Court discharged the accused. It also dismissed the revision petition stating that it found no merit in the instant petition.
Case Reference- State v. Anil, Crl. Revision Petition 1058 of 2019, decided on 06-11-2019.
Document:
