MUMBAI: A special
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (
POCSOA) court on Thursday convicted and sentenced a 38-year-old
Wadala man to 10 years’ imprisonment for attempting to sodomize an 11-year-old boy.
The child, who was out buying vegetables when the accused lured him to his house with books, escaped from the ordeal by telling the accused he would get him a girl if he let him go. Referring to these revelations in his testimony before the court, the judge observed, “These statements are sufficient to show that the child is mature enough to be a competent witness and his evidence can be taken into consideration at par with other witnesses.”
The court said the sentence was decided with the object of preventing the accused from committing a similar offence and also send a message to society that such offenders are not spared.
The complaint was lodged by a constable on August 18, 2014. The cop said he was on patrolling duty at about 1.15pm when a boy came crying to him. When prodded, the child revealed the accused had taken him home, bolted the door and sexually assaulted him. The constable further stated the boy showed him the house where the crime was committed but the door was locked. A neighbour said the accused lived in the house with his sister-in-law and she would leave for work in the morning. The constable said he then informed the boy’s parents and brought them to the police station. The accused was later arrested.
Among the witnesses were the child, the constable, two investigating officers, the neighbour, the doctor who conducted the medical examination of the child and the school principal.
The defence submitted that the constable was an interested witness and there were no eye-witnesses or independent witnesses in the case. The lawyer further contended that the vendor from whom the victim had bought tomatoes was not examined as a witness. He also argued the child had accompanied the accused on his own accord and the lack of any physical injuries showed the offence was not proved.
The court however refuted the defence contentions. It held neither the constable nor the boy had a grudge against the accused and their testimonies were reliable. The court also said the lack of injury did not indicate that the accused had not attempted to rape the child.