Denying justice to child victims of sexual abuse unfair just because perpetrator is father: Delhi HC

The court declined to quash a POCSO case against a man, rejecting his contention that he had been falsely implicated

The Delhi High Court has said it would be highly unfair to deny an opportunity of justice to a child victim of sexual exploitation because the perpetrator of the offence happened to his own father.

The court declined to quash the POCSO case against the man, rejecting his contention that he had been falsely implicated as he had a matrimonial dispute with his own mother.

"To deny the child victim the right to get such justice only because one of the parties involved happens to be his real father and his father and mother have matrimonial discord will be highly unfair," a single-judge bench of Swarana Kanta Sharma said.

The court said the truthfulness of the statement of the victim will become clear only during the trial after the testimonies of the child and other witnesses are recorded and appreciated on the touchstone of cross-examination.

"Holding otherwise will amount to throttling the judicial proceedings and denying opportunity to get justice to the victim child," it said.

The court rejected the man's contention that the FIR was based on false, fabricated and concocted facts due to estranged relationship between him and his wife, and that she had used the minor son to harass him to satisfy her false ego.

The court, however, said his contention appeared to be premature for the purpose of quashing the FIR.

"This court remains conscious of the fact that such cases cannot be treated as cases of matrimonial discord but note that the child who is victim in this case has his own individual constitutional right to get justice in case he has been sexually abused," the bench said.

"To deny the child victim the right to get such justice only because one of the parties involved happens to be his real father and his father and mother have matrimonial discord will be highly unfair," the bench added.

The court also pointed out the victim has narrated specific incidents of sexual abuse, the manner in which those were committed, along with the places, time and dates.

It also pointed out that the child has already recorded his statement before the police as well as the judicial magistrate while a charge sheet has also been filed in the matter.

"While exercising its extra ordinary powers under Section 482 CrPC, this court cannot hold a trial, appreciate evidence or decide that the statements given by the child to the police, to the Magistrate, and to the counselor, he was taken to, were tutored, false or motivated," the bench said.

The bench further held that this court is not satisfied that the allegations in the FIR at this stage can be held to be false or vindictive.

In the case, the bench masked the name of the accused and mother, noting, Section 23 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act barred media from disclosing identity of the child victim in any manner.