A special POCSO court has sentenced a 43-year-old man to 20 years imprisonment for sexually assaulting an eight-year-old neighbour boy in the open space of a Dharavi temple on the pretext of playing with him during the lockdown.
As per the case registered on July 22, 2020, the victim was playing nearby his house when the man called him and slyly took him inside the temple. There, he subjected him to unnatural sex. When the boy started shouting, he threatened him with life. A while later when someone came nearby, the man ran away. The boy managed to reach home and narrated the incident to his parents. Based on their complaint, the man was arrested three days later and has been in prison since then.
Witness Testimonies And Accused's Defence
Public prosecutor Pranjali Joshi examined six witnesses, including the nephew of the temple priest who happens to be the man's relative. They had seen the victim and the accused in a half-naked state at the time of the incident. In submission before the court, the priest said the man was residing with them. When he saw him with the boy in such a state, he shouted, prompting the accused to wear clothes and flee.
In his defence, the man claimed that the priest's family was trying to falsely implicate him as he was smoking and was unemployed so they wanted him to leave the house. He questioned how the incident took place during the lockdown when the temples were closed. Contending the claim, the prosecution brought it on record that the accused had the access to the entrance of the temple's open ground.
Court's Verdict on Lockdown Crime
The court said that considering the evidence, there is no reason to disbelieve the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses that the crime indeed took place during the lockdown. During the period, the people were allowed to go outside the house. “On the other hand, as admitted by the prosecution witnesses, temples and mosques were closed due to lockdown. Hence, it was very easy to use the said place by a person (for the crime), who was having the keys. So, the arguments on behalf of the accused in this regard cannot be accepted,” the court said.
