Law has to stand firm with victim even if own parents don't stand with him: Delhi High Court convicts man for rape of 14-year-old boy

Courts must be alive to socio-economic factors that may sometimes drive people to compromise on getting justice, the Delhi High Court observed recently while upholding a man's conviction for the sexual assault of a 14-year-old-boy despite a settlement by the victim's family with the accused [Vicky v State]..While upholding the conviction of the assailant under Section the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act and the Indian Penal Code (IPC), Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma said,"In this Court's opinion, it is essential to deal with such cases with a heavy hand. Law has to stand firm with the victim who cannot stand for himself being minor, even if his own parents are not standing with him.".While adjudicating such cases, courts must ensure that justice is not compromised by hidden influences or external pressures, the Court added.“Judges while adjudicating a matter have to go beyond 'why' of 'how' a thing has happened. The Courts must remain alert towards the unwritten hindrances, which speak of its commitment to uncovering the actual facts and developments of a case. In doing so, it ensures that justice is not compromised by hidden influences or external pressures.".The High Court made the observation in a case involving the aggravated penetrative sexual assault of a 14-year-old boy. The victim's mother had told the trial court that she wanted to close the case as she had arrived at a compromise with the accused.However, Justice Sharma noted that the mother had simply stated that a compromise was arrived at, but could not deny that the incident had occurred. The Court also noted that the woman was illiterate and that a compromise would not be needed if the incident had not taken place at all. In this backdrop, Justice Sharma underscored the need for courts to be vigilant so that such compromises do not hinder the delivery of justice. "The Courts, thus, have to delve in for a deeper understanding into the underlying reasons for such compromises. Going beyond the surface of the matter, the Courts must recognise the need to understand the socio-economic context that may drive individuals to make choices that compromise their pursuit of justice. This approach ensures that the Courts remain cognizant of the broader societal dynamics that influence legal proceedings," the Court said. .Justice Sharma emphasized that a court's duties go beyond merely deciding the guilt or innocence of a party. “Courts are seen as guardians of public trust and confidence, and their decisions, especially in serious criminal cases, send signals to society about the consequences of unlawful actions. Thus, it is the duty of the Courts to decide cases in a manner that resonate beyond the confines of a courtroom,” the judgment stated. Courts must be vigilant to ensure that the pursuit of truth remains paramount, undeterred by outside influences or attempts to compromise the integrity of the legal process, the judge added..The Court upheld the conviction and sentence after noting that the minor victim had consistently asserted until the cross-examination stage that the convict engaged in carnal intercourse with him.Notably, the victim turned hostile during cross-examination. However, the judge noted that the cross-examination was conducted by the trial court after an eight-month gap, in blatant disregard of the Supreme Court's directions for conducting the cross-examination immediately after the examination-in-chief. "This was more critical in the present case as the minor victim had been sexually abused and had been called to the Court on four occasions.".Further, the victim's mother also testified that she had settled the matter with the accused in the meantime. The victim's change of stance was, therefore, attributed to these factors by the High Court. "Law has to stand firm with the victim who cannot stand for himself being minor, even if his own parents are not standing with him," the judge held..Moreover, the Court also expressed concern over the troubling trend of repeated adjournments at the stage of the trial."This Court notes the troubling trend of repeated adjournments being granted for cross-examination of the victims to longer dates after part cross-examination or examination-in-chief is recorded by the Trial Court.".The Court added that trial courts must be mindful of the victim's state of mind before they grant long adjournments in such matters.It proceeded to uphold the appellant's conviction for rape and his sentence, after also factoring in that there was medical evidence supporting the prosecution's case. .On a parting note, the Court observed that judges are not cut off from societal expectations and that hyper-technicalities should not obstruct the delivery of justice. "The judges may often stay aloof from the public, but they do not remain aloof from the societal expectations that offenders of criminal offences should be punished for their wrong doings," the Court said. .Advocate Faiz Imam represented the appellant. Additional Public Prosecutor Satish Kumar represented the State..[Read Judgment]