CHENNAI: Three years after a six-year-old girl was sexually assaulted by a 24-year-old man near Thiruvanmiyur, a Mahila court here sentenced the man to undergo five years of imprisonment and imposed a fine of Rs 5000.
Considering the physical and mental health of the victim, the court awarded the victim Rs 25000 as compensation to be paid by the State from the victim compensation fund. According to Special Public Prosecutor L Srilekha, the convict, P Narendra, an electrician, on December 5, 2016, sexually assaulted the girl by kissing and touching her inappropriately.
The victim’s family lived in a row house close to where the convict was running an electronics shop. On December 5, the victim was playing outside when the convict called her to the common bathroom and sexually assaulted her.
Only after two days, the victim narrated the incident to her parents as she was threatened by the convict to not reveal the incident. Based on a complaint from the victim’s mother, the All Women Police Station, Adyar, registered a case under section 6 of the POCSO Act for sexual assault.
Denying the allegations, the defence counsel raised doubts on the delay in filing a police complaint and also on account of the sudden demise of former chief minister J Jayalalithaa, when all the shops were closed including the convict’s shop.
The defence counsel also submitted that there was previous enmity between the convict and the victim’s father Jeyapalan, over the purchase of a home theatre in which the accused was refused money and quarrelled over it.
Hearing both the sides, judge RN Manjula observed that during the time of occurrence, the child was below 12 years and the crime committed by the convict would come under aggravated sexual assault and a case under section 10 of the POCSO Act.
Whenever a person is charged with sexual assault, there should be a presumption that the accused had committed the same with culpable mental state. The criminal intention of the accused goes with his act unless it is proved that he had any other intention other than the criminal intention for committing the act. So his acts are proved to have been done only with sexual intention, the judge observed.
The judge also dismissed the arguments of the defence that the evidence provided did not have the strength to disprove the prosecution and hence, the presumption that has been drawn in favour of the prosecution.