Committing grave sexual abuse of an underage boy: CA affirms 12 years RI against tuition master

By Lakmal Sooriyagoda   

The Court of Appeal has affirmed 12 years rigorous imprisonment imposed by a High Court against an English tuition master for committing grave sexual abuse of a 10-year-old boy on three occasions.   

On May 20, 2022, the Embilipitiya High Court had sentenced the accused to 12 years rigorous imprisonment while awarding a Rs.200,000 compensation to the victim after the accused was found guilty of committing grave sexual abuse of an underage boy punishable in terms of section 365B (2) (b) of the Penal Code between April 1, 2010 and January 31, 2011.   
The victim of these incidents had been a 10-year-old boy and he had given evidence for the first time in High Court in January 2021 as a 20-year-old youth.   

According to the victim’s evidence, the accused had conducted English tuition classes. The witness has stated that the accused used to give small sums of money like Rs.20 / Rs.50 after sexual offence incidents. Although the victim was subjected to several incidents of sexual abuse, he had not divulged these incidents to his parents, but had refused to attend class. As a result, his parents had admitted him to another English class.   

Sometime after the alleged incidents, there had been an educational programme conducted by the teachers of the school where the victim was studying at that time. At the end of the programme, the victim has informed his class teacher that he was subjected to sexual assault. The teacher had referred the child to the disciplinary master of the school, and through the principal of the school to the police.   

In his judgement, Justice Sampath Abayakoon observed that if it was not for the awareness programme, these incidents of sexual abuse may not have come to light and the child would have been subjected to mental trauma in silence.   

The victim child in his evidence has clearly stated that the three sexual abuse incidents faced by him happened during a period of about two weeks apart, and he refused to attend the tuition class afterwards. But he did not inform his parents because the accused had informed him not to tell anyone and gave money to him in some instances.   

However, the accused had denied that he committed any grave sexual abuse on the victim child. He had claimed that he received a complaint that the victim had taken money from a till of another child. He further claimed that he questioned the victim in that regard in front of the other children and checked his trouser pockets.   

The Court of Appeal two-judge-bench comprising Justices Sampath Abayakoon and P. Kumararatnam held that they found no reason to interfere with the conclusions of the High Court Judge as the conviction entered upon the accused was based on sound reasoning.