2 get jail for sexually assaulting special boy

Ludhiana: A local court has sentenced two men to seven years of rigorous imprisonment after finding them guilty of inserting a pen into the private parts of a special boy and filming it.
A fine of Rs 25,000 each was also imposed on the two. In case of default in fine payment, the convicts, both of whom were drivers and known to the minor, would have to undergo another three months of rigorous imprisonment. Of the fine amount, the court directed that Rs 40,000 be paid to the boy as compensation.

On the complaint of the father of the 14-year-old boy, police had booked the two on the charge of unnatural offence and under Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act and Section 67 of the Information and Technology Act on October 6, 2016.

The boy’s father had told the police, “On October 2, 2016, my son had gone to a ground near our house to play. There, the two men caught hold of him and inserted a pen into his private parts. The duo took the cellphone of my son’s friends, who was standing there, and filmed the barbaric act. On returning home, my son apprised me of the incident. The video is the proof of the crime they committed.”

During the case trial, the accused cried implication.

Additional public prosecutor for state S S Haidar sought punishment for the accused on the basis of the deposition of the boy, his father, friend, on whose cellphone the video was made, and the doctor who examined the minor, among others.

The defence counsel submitted that unexplained delay in registration of the FIR cast shadow of suspicion on the prosecution story.

Turning down the plea, the court observed, “Delay in lodging FIR cannot be used as a ritualistic formula for discarding the prosecution cases and doubting its authenticity.”

The defence counsel argued that the accused have been implicated on account of an old enmity between the two parties.

The court said the dispute could not have led to levelling of such charges.

The defence counsel pleaded that the “boy is mentally weak and therefore, not much weightage can be given to his testimony”.

The court observed, “Nowhere has it come to the fore that the boy was unable to perceive or understand what was going on around him.”

While turning down the plea of the convicts for leniency, the court observed, “Court would be failing in its duty if adequate punishment is not awarded in a crime committed against innocent children that too by acquaintances. Such perverted per-disposition as is in the case in hand that too towards the child of 14 years of age is unthinkable and unpardonable.”