POCSO Court Sentences 50-Year-Old Man To 3 Years For Sexual Harassment Of Minor

The special POCSO court recently sentenced a 50-year-old man to three years of imprisonment for sexually harassing a 13-year-old girl and stalking her while she would go for her tuitions.

Judge’s observations during conviction

While convicting the man, the special judge S. C. Jadhav said, “Touching the buttocks of the girl by uttering the words ‘Tum Bohot Sexy Lagti Hai, Man Karta Hai Ki Tuze Uthake Leke Jau’ itself suggests that the accused had committed the act with no other reason but only with the sexual intent to commit sexual assault. It is also proved that he used to stalk her and thereby sexually harassed her.”

The girl claimed that she knew the accused for the last five years before her family reported the case to Mahim police station on May 30, 2016.

Accused stalked the girl regularly

The girl had alleged that whenever she used to attend her tuition, the accused used to stand at Mahim bus depot. He used to follow her up to her tuition. The victim also alleged that whenever she used to get down from the stairs of the tuition, he used to touch her buttocks, kiss her. She had informed her mother and grandmother about it. She also informed her maternal uncles who had warned him.

However, despite the warnings, the man continued to harass the girl. She claimed that on May 24, 2016, when she was standing near a mosque with her friend, the accused came there and touched her buttocks. He also kissed her on her cheek and said, “Tum Bohot Sexy Lagti Hai, Man Karta Hai Ki Tuze Uthake Leke Jau”. He threatened to kidnap her. It was only after this incident that the family approached the police and lodged a case against him.

Court dismisses accused’s claims

The accused, in his defense, claimed that he has been falsely implicated by the family of the victim because of previous enmity.

The court discarded his claim and held him guilty of sexual harassment, observing that, “The accused has not brought any evidence to show that there was a dispute between the family of the accused and the family of the victim on account of a shortage of tap water supply. The accused did not examine any witness who would have supported his defense. There seems to be no reason for the victim to lodge a false report against him. There is no evidence even to suggest that the police officer had any reason to prosecute him for the commission of such an offense. Thus, the accused utterly failed to prove contrary to the commission of the offense by him.”