By 
The Delhi High Court has refused to suspend the sentence of a man convicted of sexually assaulting a young child. The bench was made up of Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Dinesh Bhatt. They said that, at this stage, they did not want to suspend the sentence, given the evidence on record, including the forensic evidence.
The Court was hearing an appeal against the conviction and sentence given by the Additional Sessions Judge 01 (POCSO), North West, Rohini, Delhi.
The case:
The incident took place on 23rd July 2023, when the survivor was seven years old. The Trial Court found the man guilty of aggravated penetrative sexual assault on a child below 12 years of age, committed repeatedly, under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. He was also found guilty of criminal intimidation. After looking at the evidence, the Trial Court said the prosecution had proved the offences beyond all reasonable doubt.
The sentence:
For aggravated penetrative sexual assault, the Trial Court gave rigorous imprisonment for life. It said clearly that “life’’ means jail for the rest of his natural life. A fine of Rs. 1 lakh was also imposed, with one year of simple imprisonment if he did not pay. For criminal intimidation, he got five years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 20,000, with three months of simple imprisonment if he did not pay. Both sentences will run at the same time.
Compensation:
The Trial Court ordered that the full fine, if recovered, be paid to the child victim as compensation. It also looked at the nature of the crime, the depth of the child’s suffering and the lifelong impact of the offence when deciding how much compensation she should get.
Keeping in mind the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Rules, 2020 and the facts of the case, the Trial Court awarded Rs. 10.50 lakh to the child under Section 33(8) of the POCSO Act.
The Trial Court observed, “Considering all the factors as enumerated above, as per Rule 9 of The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Rules, 2020 and the observations made in the case titled as X v. State of NCT of Delhi (acting through its Secretary) (supra) as well as after evaluating the nature of the crime, the depth of suffering, and the lifelong impact on the victim child, this Court in an attempt to heal and restore the victim child holds that the victim child is entitled to the maximum compensation permissible under law.”
Directions by the High Court:
The High Court noted the compensation awarded by the Trial Court. It told the Secretary of the District Legal Services Authority, North West, Delhi, to file a status report on the compensation awarded to the victim’s family. It also ordered that the compensation and a message written by the Trial Court Judge for the survivor be given to the child or her family within two weeks.
The Judge’s message to the child:
The order includes a post script written by the Trial Court Judge, Ms. Rajani Ranga, Additional Sessions Judge 01 (POCSO), North West, Rohini, speaking directly to the child.
The Judge stated, “Before parting, this Court must address the child victim – not in the formal language of a judgment but as a judge who has heard her voice, who has read her words, and who has been moved by her courage.”
The Judge mentioned the child’s plea that the accused should stay in jail until he became old. She explained that the Court had considered this plea while deciding the sentence. The message stated, “Beta, this Court heard you. When you said Jab tak uncle buddhe na ho jaaye, tab tak unhe jail mein hi Rakha jaaye, this Court listened. And this Court has answered your plea.”
The Judge further told the child that the accused would stay in prison for the rest of his natural life and would not be able to harm her or any other child again.
The message stated, “Beta, this Court heard you. When you said Jab tak uncle buddhe na ho jaaye, tab tak unhe jail mein hi Rakha jaaye, this Court listened. And this Court has answered your plea.“Today, this Court has ordered that the man you called ‘uncle’ will never walk free again. He will live in a cage for the rest of his life. He will grow old in that cage. He will die in that cage. He will never be able to hurt you, or your little sister, or any other child, ever again.”
The Trial Court also praised the child’s courage in coming to Court and identifying the accused. The Judge wrote, “You are the bravest little girl this Court has ever seen. You came to Court, you pointed at the man who hurt you, and you told the truth.”
The Judge added that the Court could not give back her lost childhood, but her words had been heard and her plea had been granted.
The message ended with words of encouragement. The Judge told her, “Now, beta, live your life. Go to school Make friends. Laugh. Play Dream. This Court will always remember your courage.”
The High Court noted that the child was seven years old at the time of the incident and is now ten. It described the Trial Court’s message as one of encouragement.
Other orders:
The High Court told the concerned Jail Superintendent to place the latest nominal roll and other relevant material about the appellant on record. It also told the appellant to file an affidavit about his past criminal record, as required by the applicable Practice Directions. The Registry was told to call for the Trial Court Record and prepare the appeal paperbook quickly.
Decision on suspension of sentence:
The appellant had applied for suspension of his sentence and release on bail while the appeal is pending. The High Court looked at the evidence available at this stage, including the forensic evidence.
The Bench held, “Considering the evidence in this matter, including the forensic evidence, at this stage, the Court is not inclined to suspend the sentence.” So the sentence was not suspended and the appellant was not granted bail at this stage.
Next steps:
The matter will be listed again to consider the status report on the compensation awarded to the victim. The appeal is also fixed for further hearing. The High Court directed that copies of the order be sent to the concerned Jail Superintendent and the District Legal Services Authority for information and compliance.
Case Details: Sumit Shakya v. State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.
