The Delhi high court imparted justice by dismissing the petition filed by the petitioner because it felt the petitioner and his parents have sexually abused his wife and his two children. The court decided after hearing the statement of the children.
Time and again, Indian lawmakers have enacted many laws to protect human rights, and POCSO is one of such laws. Protection of children against sexual offenses act passed on 22nd May 2012 aims to protect children from all sorts of sexual abuse and ensure healthy childhood. Sexual offenses include sexual assault, child pornography, penetrative assault, etc.
Petition rejected because the petitioner misbehaved:
The Delhi high court dismissed a criminal case against a person charged for inappropriately touching his son and daughter. The daughter gave evidence against her father that he put his hands against her waist and inside her pants. The daughter warned him not to repeat the act. Despite the warning, he continued doing it, which enraged her.
When his wife questioned him about his indecent behavior, he outrightly said touching his daughter would not be wrong. He also installed surveillance cameras in his daughter’s dressing room, the videos of which appeared on the TV screen and went to her grandparents’ mobile too. He also misconducted himself with his son with malicious intention.
The petitioner filed a petition to stay proceedings against him (petitioner -3) and his parents. His mother is the second petitioner, and his father is the first petitioner in this case. Hearing the case, justice Manojkumar Ohri opined on 12th October that during the initial stage of the case, an FIR was filed under sections 498 A, 323, 354D, 506, 509, sec 34 of IPC. The victim’s mother registered a case in New Friends Colony police station, Delhi. When the court examined the victims and recorded their statements under section 161,164 of CrPC, it came to light that the petitioner touched the chest of his daughter, which is an aggravated form of crime. The court added to original charges section 10 of the POCSO Act and section 377 of IPC.
The high court concluded that it is not ready to take into account the statement of the children after hearing the plea of the counsel appearing for the accused. Furthermore, it also added that the court wishes to testify children. There are shreds of evidence to prove physical torture during their mother’s (respondent 2) absence from their home, and she left her matrimonial home on 19th August 2021. The court further wishes to collect the statements of children during the trial.
While recording the statement of the petitioner’s son, he said that his father did a lot of bad things with him. His father kissed him hard to hurt him. Whenever he came out of the bathroom after a shower, his father would touch him in inappropriate places. When the petitioner put him to sleep, the father used to put his legs inside his underwear. After recording the statements of this child, the court added Section 377 of IPC and Section 10 of POCSO to the original charges.
FACTS OF THE CASE:
The complainant Vipra Sharma married petitioner no:3 Sunny Sharma during the year 2007. They have a daughter (AA) and a son (AD). The petitioner no:1 is Dharamveer Sharma, and petitioner no:2 is Nishi Sharma- parents of Sunny Sharma. The complainant filed a complaint in the new friends’ colony police station when she could no longer endure the torture of these three petitioners.
She stated that her husband coerced her to have unnatural sex in the complaint, which she outrightly denied. She was also enraged because her father-in-law wanted her to have a sexual relationship with her.
Source: From various internet sources.
