Court Imposes Punishment of 15 yrs Rigorous Imprisonment for Sodomizing Minor Boy

June 01, 2018

In a remarkable case (Jabbar v. State, decided on May 30, 2018) the Delhi High Court to combat recidivism by the Appellant who was guilty of committing sodomy on a 6 year old boy punished the accused appellant for a period of 15 years of rigorous imprisonment.

In the case, the appellant appealed against Additional Session Judge’s order whereby the appellant was held liable for offence under Section 6 of the POCSO Act i.e. sodomizing and, thereby, committing aggravated penetrative sexual assault on, a 6-year-old boy.

The High Court after hearing the facts and circumstances in the case and in view of evidence on record dismissed the appeal and made the following key observation with reference to the POCSO Act in the case:

That the POCSO Act applies to every person below 18 years of age. It also referred to Supreme Court’s recent observation in the case of Alakh Alok Srivsatava vs Union of India[1] to hold that the POCSO Act is a gender neutral legislation.

That applying the principle of purposive construction, it is essential, therefore, that the provisions of the POCSO Act are interpreted in a child-centric manner, the avowed intention and purpose of the statute being prevention of sexual offences against children. It does not, therefore, discriminate or distinguish between a boy and a girl, as victims of sexual offences. The jurisprudence that has developed, with respect to the testimonies of girl-victims, as witnesses would, therefore, apply, so far as the POCSO Act is concerned, mutatis mutandis to boy-victims.

In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and evidence on record the Delhi High Court upheld the conviction, of the appellant, under Section 6 of the POCSO Act (Punishment for aggravated penetrative sexual assault). In view of the gravity of offence committed by the appellant, the High Court awarded the appellant punishment of 15 years of rigorous imprisonment. The Court in the following expressed its pain and anguish in child sexual assault cases as in the present one:

Psychosocial deviancy and aberrant sexual proclivities are writ large on the offence committed by the appellant on a helpless 6 year old boy. We wholeheartedly agree with the learned ASJ, when she holds that the persistence, of the pain and tenderness, in the perianal region of ̳S‘, a month and a half after he had been sodomised, was indicative of the brutality of the act. As against this, however, we also bear in mind the fact that the appellant is only 30 years of age as on date, and that there is no evidence to indicate that he was a habitual offender, or incorrigibly inclined towards committing such acts. There is no reason to believe that the offence 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 offences 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.