Mumbai: The special court for Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act has sentenced a 47-year-old watchman to 20 years in jail for sexually assaulting a 14-year-old girl residing in Jogeshwari near a building where he worked as a watchman in June 2018.
The court said, “A rapist not only causes physical injuries but leaves indelible scars on the most cherished possession of a woman i.e. her dignity, honour, reputation and, not the least, her chastity. Rape is not only a crime against a woman, it is a crime against the entire society. It destroys the entire psychology of a woman and pushes her into a deep emotional crisis.”
As per the police case, the accused worked as a watchman in a housing society in Jogeshwari East. He also helped the residents of the building where the girl lived. He was acquainted with the family, which is engaged in repair work of plumbing and electric equipment.
On July 7, 2018, a school holiday, the victim and her brother had gone to play in a nearby garden at around 5pm. When they were returning, the accused caught hold of her hand and took her to a room on the ground floor of the building where he was employed. The girl said the man gaged her and raped her in the room.
Late in the evening, when her mother returned, she found the teen nervous and scared. On coaxing, she narrated the ordeal. However, the mother, who also informed the victim’s grandmother, couldn’t muster the courage to disclose the incident to anyone.
Four days later, the girl complained of abdominal pain and was taken to a doctor, who advised the family to approach the police. Following this, they went to the police and registered a case.
The defence claimed that the man was falsely implicated and that they had beaten him up four days before the registration of the case and he was hospitalised. Thereafter, he went to reside with his friend in Dahisar.
The court rejected the defence, observing that “it came on record that the nature of the accused is decent and he had cordial relations with all society members”. The court said the victim’s family had “no reasons to hold a grudge against the accused to implicate him”.
