HC voices concern over ‘spurt’ in sexual offences against minor girls

The Nagpur bench of the Bombay High Court recently took cognisance of the rising number of cases pertaining to sexual offences against minor girls. The HC accordingly said that cases pertaining to the sexual offence against minor girls must be dealt with iron hand and deterrence.

A single-judge bench of Justice VM Deshpande said, “This court cannot keep a blind eye on what is happening around the society. Even before this Court many of the cases are brought wherein the age of the victim, who is sexually abused, is well below the age of 10 years.”

“It appears that there is a spurt of offences wherein minor girls are being targeted by men to fulfil their lust. Therefore, these type of offences must be dealt with iron hand and with deterrence. As such leniency cannot be shown in such matters,” Justice Deshpande added.

The judge was hearing an appeal filed by Pankaj Phule (38), a driver by profession. He had challenged the judgement of a trial court which convicted him for outraging the modesty of an eight-yearold girl by touching her inappropriately. He had also sought to quash the conviction under the Protection Of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act.

According to the prosecution, the minor victim, whose parents run an iron shop, was touched inappropriately by Phule, who entered her house in the absence of the parents. The prosecution claimed that since Phule was known to the victim’s family, no one disallowed him to enter the house, as he used to visit their home on a daily basis to charge his cell phone.

The aunt of the victim who was examined by the court had stated that Phule took the minor girl inside one room of her house and started touching her inappropriately after which the girl started shouting.

Having considered the material on record, Justice Deshpande upheld the decision of the trial court, which sentenced Phule to rigorous imprisonment for nearly 10 years. As Justice Deshpande upheld the conviction, Phule’s advocate sought some leniency submitting that his client is only 38-years-old and has a family to look after. Justice Deshpande rejected the prayer saying, “The appellant (Phule) is a married person, aged about 38 years. The victim is only aged about eight years, an age when she has not attained puberty, still, Phule targeted her to fulfil his lust. In my view, the sentence is just and proper.”

The bench said that cases pertaining to sexual offence against minor girls must be dealt with an iron hand