The Kerala High Court has reduced the sentence of a man convicted for sexually assaulting and raping his minor daughter aged 15 on multiple occasions between 2015 and 2017, in view of his age and the fact that the girl is now married.
The bench of Justice P.B. Suresh Kumar and Justice C. Pratheep Kumar, the court partially altered the sentence of the man convicted under Section 376 (2)(f) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which penalises raping a woman with whom a man is in a position of trust or authority being a relative or guardian of such woman. The trial court had found the accused guilty and imposed a life sentence under Section 376 (2)(f), alongside a fine and additional sentences for other charges.
The accused challenged this judgment and sentence from the Special Court for trial of offences under the Prevention of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act and Children’s Court. He requested a lenient approach, arguing that he is now 57. He also pointed out that the girl is married and is currently living away from his residence.
According to the prosecution, the man used to allegedly sexually abuse his daughter while her mother went to Singapore due to work commitments. The girl alleged the abuse continued even after the return of her mother. While giving the details, she said she was threatened if she revealed it to anyone. However, in October 2017, she fainted in school. Concerned teachers inquired about the cause and whether there were any issues at home. It was then that she first revealed the abuse to her teachers, who subsequently informed the Headmaster. The Headmaster instructed a teacher to provide counselling and report the matter to Childline.
The prosecution argued that the sentence was disproportionate, citing the girl’s age and trauma as factors that should influence sentencing. It was contended that the lack of detailed statements from the girl was understandable due to her circumstances.
The accused argued that he was being implicated in a false case as the girl did not like her mother going to Singapore. It was further contended that she has made several improvements and contradictions in the details mentioned in her First Information Report (FIR) till the testimony before the court.
The court acknowledged that the FIR and initial statements did not need to cover every detail of the abuse, given her age and trauma. Citing precedents, the court recognized: “Being a minor girl of 15 years, she will have her own inhibitions, limitations and difficulties in discussing and disclosing the details of sexual abuse made by her father, to a third person.”
The court stated that it cannot be treated as an omission amounting to contradiction and the victim’s testimony was held to be “genuine, natural and sterling in nature so that it can be relied upon without any corroboration”.
The court further noted that “unless there is compelling reasons like bitter animosity, a daughter will not raise false allegation of sexual harassment against her own father”. It highlighted that her dislike for her mother’s work in Singapore does not provide a valid reason for falsely accusing her father of such a serious offence. “We are not inclined to believe that contention also, as an excuse for implicating her father in a rape case,” the court said.
In assessing the sentencing, the court recognised the gravity of the offence but also the appellant’s age and the time already served. The court noted, “The accused was aged 50 years at the time of commission of the offence. For the last seven years, he is in jail and now he is 57. As submitted by the learned counsel for the accused, the victim is already married and leading a peaceful life along with her husband and family.”
Conclusively, the High Court upheld the conviction but deemed the original life sentence excessive. The sentence was, thus, modified to rigorous imprisonment for 20 years, instead of the life imprisonment originally imposed by the trial court. The fine and default sentence under Section 376 (2)(f) were sustained. The sentence for Section 506 Part-II of the IPC was reduced to two years of rigorous imprisonment, and the sentence for Section 75 of the JJ Act was reduced to one year of rigorous imprisonment.
Catch the latest developments on Bangladesh Unrest with our live blog.
Comments
0 comment