Courts must take firm stand against child sexual harassment, voyeurism: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court recently commented on the need for courts to take a strict stand against child sexual harassment and voyeurism, given the profound impact such crimes have on children and teenagers. .The judicial system must recognize the long-term consequences of voyeurism and sexual assault, and the physical and mental impact of such crimes on its victims, the Court said. If courts were to take a lenient view in such cases, it will discourage the victims of such offences from approaching the authorities for justice, Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma added."When the judiciary takes a firm stand against child sexual harassment, it encourages victims and their families to report such crimes, reducing the stigma associated with seeking justice and ensuring that cases are handled with the utmost seriousness ... victim shaming and victim’s family shaming must not be allowed as it will be a deterrent and road block in the real victims reporting such offences to the authorities. Taking a lenient view in such cases will also discourage the real victims of such offences," the Court's July 1 order said. .Judicial pronouncements in cases of child sexual assault and voyeurism play a critical role in addressing the harm inflicted upon victims and in shaping community attitudes towards such heinous crimes, the Court further highlighted. "For victims, judicial pronouncements that recognize and articulate the profound impact of voyeurism on them and their families put a healing balm on the wounds of sufferance from such harassment and assault. This is equally crucial for their psychological healing. This acknowledgement in cases where such offences are proved beyond reasonable doubt, assures the victims that their experiences have been accepted to be true and the trauma undergone by them has not only been recognized by the criminal justice system but it also recognizes the gravity of the violation they have endured. The broader community also feels the impact of judicial pronouncements in these cases. Strict legal actions against perpetrators act as a deterrent, discouraging potential offenders by demonstrating that the legal system is proactive and uncompromising in dealing with such crimes," the Court said..The Court was dealing with an appeal filed by a 22-year-old man (appellant) challenging his conviction by a trial court in a case of voyeurism and child sexual harassment.The appellant had been employed as a house help at the teenage victim's home. The victim initially suspected that she saw him peep into her room with a mobile phone while she was changing clothes to go to school. After coming back from school, the victim found the appellant alone in his room watching a video of her on his mobile phone.She informed her parents, who called the police leading to the appellant's arrest. It was discovered that the appellant had recorded objectionable videos on his phone. A trial court convicted him for sexual harassment and voyeurism under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO Act), sentencing him to three years of imprisonment. He was also asked to pay ₹1,000 as fine. The trial court's decision was challenged by the accused man before the High Court, where his counsel argued that the appellant was falsely implicated..The High Court, however, found no merit in the appeal and criticised the appellant's claim that objectionable videos were "planted" on his phone because the victim's father wanted to avoid paying him salary."It is unthinkable that a father will prepare three inappropriate videos of his school-going daughter and plant it in the phone of domestic help, and thereafter make it a subject of FIR, only because he did not want to pay a paltry sum of money to his domestic help," the Court observed. The Court observed that such a contention would amount to shaming not just the victim, but also her family, which cannot be allowed. "The Court must uphold the dignity and rights of not only the child victims but also their families, ensuring they are shielded from further victimization. The criminal adjudicatory justice system has a paramount duty to protect the most vulnerable, particularly children, from any form of secondary trauma caused by unjust accusations or demeaning narratives. The Court must, therefore, take a firm stand against any attempts to malign the character of child victims or use victim shaming and victim family shaming as tools and pawns in legal strategies," the Court said.It further noted that the trauma undergone by the victim in this case severely impacted her studies and her career and even led her to go abroad for further studies. The Court proceeded to conclude that the appellant did not deserve any leniency on the question of his conviction or sentence. "It is imperative that the judiciary ensures children in this country are not forced by such trauma to leave their homeland ... The legal system must provide a sense of justice and security, helping victims to reclaim their lives without having to abandon their homes and futures," the Court said.