Positive Career Records Not Evidence Of Good Character: Kerala Court Sentences Ex-Cop To 6 Yrs Imprisonment For Sexually Assaulting Minor

Special Judge, Rekha R of Thiruvananthapuram, Fast Track Special Court (POSCO) found Sajeev Kumar guilty of offences under section 10 read with 9(a)(iv) of the POCSO Act for committing sexual assault by a police officer. He was also convicted under Section 354A (2) read with Section 354A(1)(i)of the IPC for making sexual advances involving unwelcome and explicit sexual overtures.

“On evaluating the entire evidence adduced by the prosecution, it can be concluded that prosecution succeeded in proving that accused who was known and identified as a police officer committed sexual assault on PW 1 at 5 to 5.15 pm at his quarters. Prosecution succeeded in proving that accused committed the offence under sections 10 read with 9(a) (iv) of POCSO Act.”

As per the prosecution case, the victim's father was a police constable who passed away and the mother was an attender at police headquarters. They were residing in police quarters. The allegation was that when the child came to the police quarters of the accused seeking some information for conducting a children's club event, the accused with sexual intent put his hands around the victim, forcefully made her sit on his lap, demanded a kiss and committed sexual assault. Since the accused belonged to the Hindu Nair Community and the victim belonged to the Scheduled Tribe Community, an offence under Section 3 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (SC/ST(POA) was also registered.

The Court accepted the statement given by the victim and held it as reliable and consistent. It stated that the defence was unable to break the child witness despite being put to rigorous and lengthy cross-examination. On the above observation, the Court rejected the defence arguments that the case was falsely fabricated to implicate the accused.

Regarding the character of the accused, the Court held that excellent track records of a person in his career cannot be considered as evidence of general reputation and general disposition. It also stated that evidence of the child victim was sufficient to prove the offending act of the accused. It said, “Hence the good character of accused pleaded by the learned defence counsel would not help the accused to escape from the clutches of law in this case”, while rejecting the evidence presented, including the accused's service entry records and medals.

The Court further rejected the defence argument that the accused was exhibiting caretaking behaviour and not with sexual intent.

“The act of the accused ie. touching the shoulder of the PW1 aged 16 years and making her sit on his lap and putting his hand around the shoulder of PW1 and held her close to his body when nobody was in his house cannot be accepted as care taking behaviours as contended by the learned defence counsel” added the Court.

The Court further stated that the prosecution established foundational facts of the case and thus the presumption of culpability under section 30 of the POCSO would be attracted. As per Section 30, the Special Court could take the presumption of the culpable mental state of the accused regarding the commission of the offence. Thus, the Court based on nature of acts committed by the accused and with the aid of Section 30 found him guilty of committing acts with sexual intent.

The Court however found that there was no evidence to prove that the accused had any knowledge of the caste of the child victim to attract an offence under the SC/ST (POA) Act. 

While imposing the punishment, the Court emphasized that the accused must recognize that the crime he committed has not only affected his own life but has also caused a disruption in the social fabric of society. The Court stated that the punishment should act as a deterrent and that undue sympathy would cause harm to the justice system.

“Considering the gravity of the offence committed by accused who was a police officer whose duty was to avert crimes and to ensure safety of fellow citizens, this court is of the definite view that term of punishment in between the minimum and maximum punishment provided by the statute should be imposed on accused to prevent recurrence of similar offences and to deter potential offenders from committing similar offences”, concluded the Court.

Counsel for the complainant: Special Public Prosecutor Vijay Mohan R S

Counsel for the accused: Advocate S S Biju

Case title: State v Sajeev Kumar

Case number: Sessions Case No: 485/2020

Click Here To Read/Download The Judgment