Read Time: 08 minutes

Synopsis

A recent judgment of a Fast track court in Kerala has held a 60 year old Joy Joseph, guilty for aggravated sexual assault on a 10.5 year old boy.

Special Judge Sirajhudeen PA has disregarded mercy on the ground that Joy’s family members, consisting of wife and two female children are solely dependant on him, while declaring him guilty for offences under section 9(m) read with section 10 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act), among others.

The Judge has rejected the man’s plea for release and benevolent treatment under the Probation of Offenders Act, while holding that in light of the seriousness of the offences Joy is found guilty of, the release of the accused on probation will certainly pass a wrong message to the society.
“Undoubtedly, the sexual violence against the children shall be viewed seriously. Our system demands the policy that no atrocities shall be committed against children and certainly they shall be protected from any kind of exploitation. The Act is a landmark legislation to prevent sexual abuse and exploitation of children. The Act intends to protect the children from offences of sexual assault, sexual harassment and pornography. Dignity of the child has been laid immense emphasis in the scheme of the legislation,” he said. 
Joy shall undergo a jail sentence of 10 years for various offences under the Indian Penal Code and the POCSO Act.

The facts of the case dictate that the incident occurred in August 2017 when the 10 year old returned from school & went to his courtyard to pluck Guavas. “At that time, the Joy entered in to the yard and made some personal queries. He made the victim believe that his father is plucking cocoa fruits in the property situate in a higher level. The victim went along with him. His father was not there. The accused asked him whether he started doing masturbation. Thereafter the accused caught hold on his Poochany(penis), by inserting his hands in to his trouser. He suffered pain and wept. The accused forcibly hand cuffed and managed to fondle his own penis by raising dhoti. Due to the pain, he kicked and escaped from there.”

The court rejected the contention of the defence counsel that the parent gave the statement against the accused in writing & not at the police. To this, the judge pointed out, “I do not think that being a parent, PW3 will not spend much time in the police station and certainly they were at hurry to proceed to the hospital. They might have stated the incident and facts that happened on the same day. As rightly pointed by the learned Prosecutor, they might have forgotten the actual proceedings after the lapse of several years. Perhaps, they might have gone to the police station and formally informed the incident on the same day”.

The Court also rejected the contention raised by defence that there was family flickering between the parents of the child, as a result of which the child’s mental health suffered badly. Court said that the mother of the child had clearly disposed that the father of the child victim was a drunkard who harassed her time and again, towards their son, he was most loving. 
“Though, he was an alcoholic person, he was very vigilant to be a responsible father. She denied the version that the mental condition of the victim became pathetic due to the ill treatment by his father. In short, she categorically deposed that her husband had neither ill-treated nor manhandled their son. It is obviously noted that though there were some family issues between the husband and wife, both of them have no issues against their child. It can be assumed that PW1 did not suffer any bitter experience from his father, as alleged by the defense side”.