Jan 02, 2025 05:41 PM IST
Police commissioner, AIIMS to ensure child’s identity kept secret in POCSO cases: Delhi HC
New Delhi, The Delhi High Court has asked the police commissioner and AIIMS medical superintendent to ensure the identities of minor survivors of sexual assault was not disclosed in any manner.
Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma while dealing with a POCSO case also brought down the jail term of a man convicted for a minor’s sexual assault saying there was only an attempt made.
However, the judge noted in the case, the investigating officer had failed to protect the minor survivor’s identity.
“The investigating officer failed to mask the identity of the victim in any manner, including during the medical examination. This reflects poorly on the investigating officer and the examining doctor concerned,” the judge said on December 23, 2024.
Taking a stern view of the failure on the officer’s part, the court ordered the authorities to ensure no such violation of the law took place in future.
The court took into account the provisions of Protection of Children against Sexual Offences Act, IPC and the Juvenile Justice Act and pointed to the prohibition on the public disclosure of a child’s identity.
“A copy of this order be sent to the commissioner of police and the medical superintendent, AIIMS, with directions to issue appropriate guidelines ensuring all necessary measures are to be taken to protect the identity of the victim in such cases and such violation does not take place in future. The compliance report be placed before the court,” it said.
The matter pertained to an appeal against the conviction of man in a case of “aggravated penetrative sexual assault” under the PCOSO Act. The convict was awarded 20 years rigorous imprisonment in 2021.
The high court brought down the jail term to 10 years, along with a ₹5,000 fine, after holding him guilty under Section 18 of the POCSO Act.
It considered the minor’s statement made to the doctor and statement made by her mother to the police to conclude there was only an attempt to commit aggravated penetrative sexual assault.
For the prosecution, the threshold to prove its case beyond any reasonable doubt in cases of “graver” offence was higher, but testimonies of its witnesses was not “wholly reliable” in the present case, the court said.
“If there is even slightest of doubt the benefit must go to the accused,” it said.
This article was generated from an automated news agency feed without modifications to text.
Get Current Updates on…
See more
