The ruling said that the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, was meant to protect children from “predatory behaviour” and ensure all those exploiting their vulnerability were dealt with an iron hand. “When the guilt of an accused stands conclusively established in a crime of this magnitude, any unwarranted or superficial leniency under the guise of the appellant’s youth or family responsibilities would not only undermine the legislative intent but would also result in a mockery of justice. The sentencing mechanism must reflect public abhorrence of the crime and serve as an effective deterrent,” it added.

Justices Vinit Kumar Mathur and Chandra Shekhar Sharma upheld the conviction of the accused.

The girl’s relative filed a complaint with the police on March 25, 2017, alleging that two men, known to the family, had arrived on a motorcycle and abducted her. One of them was alleged to have intended to marry the survivor. At the time of her kidnapping, the survivor was reportedly carrying a mobile phone which was subsequently produced at the police station by her family members.

The survivor alleged that her abductor took her to a vacant plot and sexually assaulted her. She also claimed that the man confined her for the following few days and assaulted her repeatedly till her rescue by her family and the police.

On the basis of the police’s investigation and evidence, the trial court convicted the man for the offences of “kidnapping or inducing a woman to compel her into marriage” under IPC, besides sexual assault under the provisions of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act.

‘Tender age’

Recording the statement of the survivor, the court noted that she was “gripped by profound fear” and was “unfamiliar with the surroundings”, and despite the fear, she tried to seek help. The lack of physical resistance or the failure of the child to loudly protest, while being shifted through public places under threat, could not be called consent, it held.

Upholding the conviction, the high court said, “taking a holistic view of the facts, circumstances, the tender age of the survivor, and the extreme gravity of the offenses, we find that the learned trial court was absolutely justified in refusing to adopt a lenient approach.’ The convict was sentenced to imprisonment for life, and was ordered to pay a fine of Rs 30,000.

Order not illegal

Advocate Jagat Veer Singh Deora, appearing for the convict, argued that the trial court had committed a “grave” error of law and the findings of the trial court were completely contrary to the evidence. It was further urged by the counsel that the convict had been falsely named in the case and that the entire story was fabricated.

Advocated Deepak Choudhary, representing the state, supported the decision of the trial court and urged that the order of the trial court was not illegal and had been rightly recorded based on reliable and valid evidence.