[ad_1]
Observing that courts must sensitively approach cases of child rape, the Delhi High Court recently upheld a trial court order sentencing a man to life imprisonment after he was convicted of raping his minor niece who was one year old at the time of the offence.
A division bench of Justice Siddharth Mridul and Justice Anup Jairam Bhambani in its judgment dated October 18 observed that nothing can be more heinous than a crime committed on a child. “The effect of such a crime on the mind of the child is likely to be lifelong. A special safeguard has been provided for children in Article 39 of the Constitution of India which, inter alia, stipulates that the State shall, in particular, direct its policy towards securing that the tender age of the children is not abused and that children are given environment opportunities and facilities to develop in a healthy manner and in conditions of freedom and dignity; and that childhood and youth are protected against exploitation and against moral and material abandonment,” the Court observed.
The high court noted that in cases of sexual assault against minors, it is necessary for the courts to “imbibe the legislative wisdom”. “The plight of a victim and the shock suffered can be felt instinctively; as the victim of rape is left devastated by the traumatic experience, as well as an unforgettable shame; being haunted by the memory of the horrific experience forcing her into a state of terrifying melancholia… It has been correctly said that whereas a murderer destroys the physical frame of a victim, a rapist degrades and defiles the soul of a helpless female…” the Court held.
The Delhi High Court upheld the trial court’s order holding the appellant guilty of the offences of rape and penetrative sexual assault upon the minor girl. Dismissing the man’s appeal, the Court said: “In view of the foregoing, in our considered view, the prosecution established the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. Consequently, neither the conviction nor the sentence awarded to the appellant, by the learned Trial Court warrant any modification…The present appeal is accordingly dismissed…”
In October 2019, the trial court convicted the man-appellant for offences under Section 376(2)(f) (punishment for rape of woman below 12 years of age) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 6 (Punishment for aggravated penetrative sexual assault) read with Sections 5 (Aggravated penetrative sexual assault) and 3 (Penetrative sexual assault) of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. The appellant was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life, along with a fine of Rs 20,000.
The appellant had primarily argued that apart from the parents of the minor girl, no other public witnesses have been examined by the prosecution. He further contended that the testimonies of the parents were uncorroborated and also unreliable as they were the parents of the minor girl. On this point, the court held that “if the court finds the evidence adduced, worthy of being relied on, then the testimony must be accepted and acted on, even though there may be other witnesses available who could potentially be examined but were not examined.”
The court further held that the minor girl’s parents cannot be characterised as “interested witnesses” simply because they are her parents. “…Nothing from the record or in the submissions of the appellant even remotely suggests that PW-1 and PW-2 had any motive in framing the appellant for the commission of such a heinous crime.” The high court rejected the defence of the appellant that he had been falsely implicated by the parents as a “mere after-thought” holding that their testimony is credible as they were witnesses to the offence and were present at the time of its commission.
The counsel for the appellant had argued that there were discrepancies in the parents’ testimony to which the Court observed that while appreciating the evidence of a witness, minor discrepancies on trivial matters, that do not affect the core of the prosecution’s case; would not prompt the Court to reject the evidence in toto. The court said certain details that do not corrode the credibility of a witness cannot and should not be characterized as omissions or contradictions.
With respect to the medical evidence, the Court observed that the oral testimony is completely corroborated by the medical evidence on the record. The minor girl and the appellant were both medically examined at the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS), New Delhi in December 2012 and the medical report has been proved on record. “…the contents of the abovementioned MLC have been perused by this court in their entirety and they admit of no sense of doubt or manipulation in any manner and of any kind. The MLC of the prosecutrix, confirms that the hymen of the prosecutrix was torn… and furthermore as per the FSL report, the appellant’s semen was found on the undergarments worn by the prosecutrix at the time of the commission of the offence,” the court noted.
[ad_2]
Source link