The High Court, however, found no merit in the appeal and criticised the appellant’s claim that objectionable videos were “planted” on his phone because the victim’s father wanted to avoid paying him salary.
“It is unthinkable that a father will prepare three inappropriate videos of his school-going daughter and plant it in the phone of domestic help, and thereafter make it a subject of FIR, only because he did not want to pay a paltry sum of money to his domestic help,” the Court observed.
The Court observed that such a contention would amount to shaming not just the victim, but also her family, which cannot be allowed.
“The Court must uphold the dignity and rights of not only the child victims but also their families, ensuring they are shielded from further victimization. The criminal adjudicatory justice system has a paramount duty to protect the most vulnerable, particularly children, from any form of secondary trauma caused by unjust accusations or demeaning narratives. The Court must, therefore, take a firm stand against any attempts to malign the character of child victims or use victim shaming and victim family shaming as tools and pawns in legal strategies,” the Court said.
It further noted that the trauma undergone by the victim in this case severely impacted her studies and her career and even led her to go abroad for further studies.
The Court proceeded to conclude that the appellant did not deserve any leniency on the question of his conviction or sentence.
“It is imperative that the judiciary ensures children in this country are not forced by such trauma to leave their homeland … The legal system must provide a sense of justice and security, helping victims to reclaim their lives without having to abandon their homes and futures,” the Court said.
Source: Barandbench
