The Bombay High Court recently allowed a bail application in a sexual assault case on the basis that the prosecutrix admitted to doing “dirty things”..The accused, the stepfather of the prosecutrix, was charged under Section 354 of the IPC for sexually assaulting the girl after adopting her when she was nine years old..The case was filed based on a complaint by Vijay Shetty, who is part of an NGO that works for the protection of children from sexual abuse. The complainant had informed the police that he had received a call from a girl who was in need of protection against her stepfather..The prosecutrix’s mother had died in 2006, after being diagnosed HIV positive. The girl had been since been abandoned in the compound of “Secret Heart Parist” (Sacred Heart Parish) at Andheri. She had subsequently been taken into the Fatima Mata Sadan, a shelter in the city..According to the investigation reports, the Supervisor at the protective home had observed “unnatural behaviour” on the part of the young girl. The judgment reads,.“She [the Supervisor] had received several complaints from the inmates also and, therefore, the Supervisor had taken her [the girl] into confidence and upon enquiry had found that she had an unwarranted and unnatural behaviour.”.The accused and his wife adopted the young girl when she was nine, despite being told of the child’s “unnatural behaviour”..Then, in 2015, the girl, aged seventeen, had contacted Shetty saying that her new father had sexually abused her when she was in Class VI, because of which she had undergone severe trauma..The single bench of Justice Sadhana S Jadhav, in an order dated January 16 of this year, held that after going through a statement of the prosecutrix herself, it was clear that she had admitted to doing all “dirty things”..“She [the prosecutrix] has admitted that she used to do all dirty things. It appears that she was inherently abnormal and had sexual instincts right from her childhood, in all probabilities, because of the environment and atmosphere where she lived and the conduct of her deceased mother.”.Moreover, the judge observed that at the time of lodging the report, the victim was about seventeen years old and that she had “complained about the act after a considerable lapse of time”. The order states,.“Be that as it may, on the date of lodging of the report, the victim was about 17 years old. She had not disclosed the act of the applicant to the Supervisor of the protective home and has complained about it after a considerable lapse of time. .The statement of the victim on the basis of which crime is registered, does not appear to be truthful and therefore, does not inspire confidence of this Court.”.Therefore, the court granted bail to the accused, who has been in jail for fifteen months..Apart from the uncalled for comments on the prosecutrix’s “unnatural” tendencies, what makes this judgment problematic is the fact that the court, in as many words, has already decided the case when it’s role was restricted to allowing or denying a bail application..Read the full judgment below..Nalini reports for B&B from the Delhi High Court. You can follow her on Twitter here.
The Bombay High Court recently allowed a bail application in a sexual assault case on the basis that the prosecutrix admitted to doing “dirty things”..The accused, the stepfather of the prosecutrix, was charged under Section 354 of the IPC for sexually assaulting the girl after adopting her when she was nine years old..The case was filed based on a complaint by Vijay Shetty, who is part of an NGO that works for the protection of children from sexual abuse. The complainant had informed the police that he had received a call from a girl who was in need of protection against her stepfather..The prosecutrix’s mother had died in 2006, after being diagnosed HIV positive. The girl had been since been abandoned in the compound of “Secret Heart Parist” (Sacred Heart Parish) at Andheri. She had subsequently been taken into the Fatima Mata Sadan, a shelter in the city..According to the investigation reports, the Supervisor at the protective home had observed “unnatural behaviour” on the part of the young girl. The judgment reads,.“She [the Supervisor] had received several complaints from the inmates also and, therefore, the Supervisor had taken her [the girl] into confidence and upon enquiry had found that she had an unwarranted and unnatural behaviour.”.The accused and his wife adopted the young girl when she was nine, despite being told of the child’s “unnatural behaviour”..Then, in 2015, the girl, aged seventeen, had contacted Shetty saying that her new father had sexually abused her when she was in Class VI, because of which she had undergone severe trauma..The single bench of Justice Sadhana S Jadhav, in an order dated January 16 of this year, held that after going through a statement of the prosecutrix herself, it was clear that she had admitted to doing all “dirty things”..“She [the prosecutrix] has admitted that she used to do all dirty things. It appears that she was inherently abnormal and had sexual instincts right from her childhood, in all probabilities, because of the environment and atmosphere where she lived and the conduct of her deceased mother.”.Moreover, the judge observed that at the time of lodging the report, the victim was about seventeen years old and that she had “complained about the act after a considerable lapse of time”. The order states,.“Be that as it may, on the date of lodging of the report, the victim was about 17 years old. She had not disclosed the act of the applicant to the Supervisor of the protective home and has complained about it after a considerable lapse of time. .The statement of the victim on the basis of which crime is registered, does not appear to be truthful and therefore, does not inspire confidence of this Court.”.Therefore, the court granted bail to the accused, who has been in jail for fifteen months..Apart from the uncalled for comments on the prosecutrix’s “unnatural” tendencies, what makes this judgment problematic is the fact that the court, in as many words, has already decided the case when it’s role was restricted to allowing or denying a bail application..Read the full judgment below..Nalini reports for B&B from the Delhi High Court. You can follow her on Twitter here.
