Read Time: 11 minutes

Synopsis

The Delhi High Court, on Monday, stressed that when the judiciary adopts a resolute stance against child sexual harassment, it encourages victims and their families to report such crimes. This action reduces the stigma associated with seeking justice and ensures that cases are handled with the utmost seriousness.

The bench of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma held, “Victim shaming and victim’s family shaming must not be allowed as it will be a deterrent and road block in the real victims reporting such offences to the authorities. Taking a lenient view in such cases will also discourage the real victims of such offences”. 

Per the prosecution’s case, a complaint was filed by the victim's father, alleging that while his daughter was changing clothes in her room, she sensed someone peering through her window, a recurring occurrence. To verify, she approached the window and observed Pintu Das, their household help, arriving nervously with a mobile phone. Later the victim discovered a video of herself on Pintu’s phone, summoning her parents. They witnessed three videos on Pintu Das's phone, all of the victim’s changing clothes. Subsequently, after the trial's conclusion, Pintu was convicted, prompting this appeal.

Advocate Barkha Tiwari, representing Pintu Das, argued that the trial court's judgment and sentencing were prejudged and lacked judicial scrutiny. Advocate Tiwari claimed the judgment failed to consider crucial facts and Pintu's defense during final submissions. Advocate Tiwari asserted that Pintu was falsely implicated, citing contradictions in witness statements and alleging evidence tampering by the victim's father. Advocate Tiwari criticized investigative lapses regarding the ownership of key evidence and the absence of independent witnesses. Advocate Tiwari also requested leniency in sentencing, citing the Pintu's young age and socioeconomic background.

Senior Advocate Mohit Mathur, representing the victim, highlighted that Pintu denied the allegations without presenting a defense and refused to introduce evidence during the trial. Senior Advocate Mathur dismissed claims that the victim's father fabricated videos due to a salary dispute, emphasizing the prompt filing of the FIR and forensic evidence supporting the prosecution's timeline. He stressed the impact on the victim, who relocated abroad due to trauma. He urged the dismissal of the appeal.

Additional Public Prosecutor Naresh Kumar Chahar, representing the State, asserted strong support for the prosecution's case by the victim, her parents, and police witnesses. He cited electronic evidence linking the Pintu to the videos and affirmed no delay in FIR filing. The retrieval of incriminating videos from Pintu's phone, confirmed by forensics, reinforced the prosecution's case. He argued against overturning the trial court's judgment, stating the prosecution proved its case convincingly.

The court recognized minor discrepancies in the victim's statements, attributing them to natural responses under distress and prioritizing support and trauma resolution over precise timekeeping. It stressed that decisions in such cases should not be rigid but should consider the overall context in which events unfolded.

Additionally, the court dismissed Pintu's claim regarding ownership of the mobile phone and SIM cards used for recording and storing inappropriate videos of the victim. It upheld the validity of the Forensic Science Laboratory report and expert witness testimony supporting the prosecution's case, finding no fault with the trial court's reliance on this evidence.

Regarding another argument from Pintu's counsel alleging that the victim's father fabricated the videos due to reluctance to pay Pintu's salary, the court deemed this claim baseless and insensitive. It was deemed inconceivable that a father would create such videos of his own daughter and plant them on a domestic helper's phone, subsequently filing an FIR, solely to avoid payment. “Further, accepting this argument would amount to encouraging not only victim-shaming but also family shaming of the victim which cannot be allowed by any Court of law”, the court emphasized. 

The court further reiterated “Judicial pronouncements in cases of child sexual assault, particularly those involving voyeurism, play a critical role in addressing the harm inflicted upon victims and in shaping community norms and attitudes towards such heinous crimes”. 

In the specific case of the victim preparing for her Class 12 examinations at the time of the incident, the court acknowledged the profound impact of the trauma she endured during this critical period. It expressed concern over the potential misuse of the videos by the appellant and underscored the importance of a firm stance against such offenses to dispel any notions of leniency.

Furthermore, the court condemned victim and family shaming as detrimental to reporting such offenses and emphasized the judiciary's role in upholding societal norms that prioritize the safety and well-being of children. “The fact that the child remained traumatized for a long time is evident from the necessity of sending her to a foreign land for her further studies”, the court observed. 

The judiciary's role in setting societal norms and expectations regarding child protection was underscored, highlighting the importance of consistently condemning voyeuristic acts and upholding the sanctity of a child's privacy and dignity. This helps establish a culture that prioritizes the safety and rights of children.

In this case, the impact on the victim was profound, forcing her to leave her place of upbringing due to the emotional and psychological distress caused by the incident. This highlighted the need for the Courts to consider the mental and emotional toll on the victim's overall well-being, ensuring that victims receive justice and support to rebuild their lives.

Case Title: Pintu Das v State Govt Of Nct Of Delhi (2024:DHC:4832)