A girl’s intimacy doesn’t give a man licence to abuse her sexually: HC
Observing that sexual assault isn’t a physical injury but an injury to the soul, the Bombay High Court on Tuesday said that just because a girl is intimate with a man, doesn’t mean he has the license to sexually abuse her. The HC, accordingly, upheld the conviction of a 26-year-old Borivali resident, who had thrown acid on the victim after sexually abusing her.
A single-judge bench of Justice Sadhana Jadhav was hearing an appeal filed by one Jitendra Sapkal challenging the 2016 decision of a special POCSO court that sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment of 10 years on two counts, five years on three counts, and three years on two counts.
As per the prosecution, the victim, who was 17 years old then, was close to Sapkal. However, after the family’s intervention, she distanced herself from him but he didn’t stop and continued to harass her. She twice informed the police, who each time left him with a warning.
After the family registered an FIR, he picked her up on her way home and took her to Gorai beach, where he threw acid on her face. Some of it entered her mouth, making her lose her voice for several months.
The bench noted that despite the horrific crime, the state hasn’t filed any plea to enhance the sentence imposed on Sapkal. “Sexual assault on a woman is not just physical injury, which can be cured. In fact, it is an injury to the soul of a woman as it ruins her womanhood,” the judge observed.
“The act of the accused in the present case is such that he wanted her to suffer from permanent or partial damage or deformity in such a manner that she would live with it for the whole life,” Justice Jadhav said, adding, “Any amount of money in the form of compensation would not compensate the damage and traumatising memories of the satanic act of the accused. It is a scar on her soul.”
She said she deserves compensation to secure the expenses for medical aid, but the fine awarded to the accused is not proportionate to the offence.
She added, “However, the state has not filed an appeal for enhancement and neither notice of enhancement was issued before admitting the appeal. Hence, the sentence of fine deserves to be maintained.”