Due to the continuous fight between the accused and her wife, they split up and used to live apart. their daughter lived with the accused. He raped her several times and threatened her not to tell anyone, else he’d kill her. She first restrained herself from telling to anyone, but finally, she talked about this to her mother. Her mother complained about section 4 of the POCSO Act. The learned Special Judge sentenced the Father to rigorous imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 5,000/- punishable under Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (for short POCSO) Act, 2012 payable rest of the life. Therefore, the petitioner filed a petition under Section 374 of the code of Civil Procedure, 1973.
According to the petitioner’s learned counsel, the prosecution was doubtful. There were many opportunities for this Court to draw a different decision than the learned Special Judge. The learned Counsel argued that the factum of rape was not proved. The complaint was lodged out of a marital dispute and to malign the petitioner.
According to the learned Counsel representing the respondent, apart from the victim girl’s oral testimony, the truth of the appellant’s penetrative sexual misconduct had been significantly proven by medical evidence. The prosecution examined 13 witnesses, which included the victim and submitted 10 documents. And stated that the accused used to live with his father and he started to commit sexual intercourse with her, he also threatened her not to tell anyone else he’d kill him.
The fact that the daughter used to live with the petitioner is foundational. The respondent has failed to contradict it. And also, the fact that the father consumed alcohol is established. Doctor (PW-12) finally gave his opinion after receiving the SFSL study that there was evidence of vaginal penetration and that recent sexual contact could not be ruled out. Further, her statement during the deposition that she was sexually abused and was threatened to not tell anybody, else, would be killed is available on record. The Court observed that at the time of the commission of the offence, the victim was under the age of 16 beyond doubt.
The Court ordered that the accused-convict has committed a serious crime that requires a sentence that is proportionate to the essence of the crime he has committed. The sentence is shortened to 12 years in the facts of the case, which the defendant must complete without parole. Therefore, the appeal stands partly allowed with the shortening of imprisonment.
Click here to read the judgement.
Libertatem.in is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgment from courts. Follow us on Google News, Instagram, LinkedIn, Facebook & Twitter. You can subscribe to our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.