Chhattisgarh High Court: In an appeal by appellant-victim’s father against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 23-06-2022 passed by the FTSC (POCSO) Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur (‘the Trial Court’), the Division Bench of Ramesh Sinha, CJ., and Arvind Kumar Verma, J.*, opined that let it not be forgotten that this case was rape on a girl child, only eleven years old at the time of commission of the offence, by her own father. Nothing could be more heinous than a crime committed on the person of a child by her father, the one who was duty-bound to provide her unflinching protection from all harm. The Court opined that instead of showing fatherly love, affection and protection to the child against the evils of the society, rather made her the victim of lust.
The Court opined that the victim was consistent in her statement and had asserted that her father on several occasions sexually exploited her even after her repeated protests. There was no doubt that being in a position of authority and trust, the accused being the father of the victim, sexually exploited his minor daughter aged about eleven years. The Court opined that there was compelling evidence to establish the culpability of victim’s father beyond doubt. Consequently, the sentence awarded to the victim’s father by the Trial Court did not warrant any interference. Therefore, the Court upheld the judgment and order of conviction dated 23-06-2022 and dismissed the present appeal.
Background
Complainant filed the FIR stating that she worked as a maid and the victim resided with her father, and victim’s mother had died. It was alleged that victim’s father used to consume liquor and thereafter ravish her minor daughter by touching her private part and sexually exploited her even after her repeated protests. On 28-01-2021, he was persuading the victim for the heinous crime and the victim was trying to run away from there, but he caught her tightly which was seen by the people of the nearby vicinity. Thereafter, victim’s father left the victim and went to consume liquor. On the same day at about 11.00 p.m., victim’s father again tried to ravish the victim and then she narrated about it to the complainant and the women of the neighbourhood, that her father was doing the diabolical act and it was not committed once but he subjected his own minor daughter to repeated acts of rape in the last three years after getting intoxicated.
It was further alleged that the victim was sent to aunt’s house and next morning, she was again left in her father’s house by her aunt. The victim was annoyed and thereafter the Lady Protection Team was informed about the incident and on the oral testimony of the victim, FIR was registered under Sections 376(2)(f), 376(2)(n), and 323 Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’) and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (‘POCSO’) against victim’s father.
After appreciation of evidence available on record, the Trial Court convicted the victim’s father under Section 324 of IPC and Sections 5(l), 5(m), 5(n) and 6 of the POCSO.
Analysis, Law, and Decision
The Court opined that the question whether conviction of the accused could be based on the sole testimony of the victim in cases of sexual assault/rape was no longer res integra. It was well settled that the sole testimony of the prosecutrix if found reliable could be the sole ground for convicting the accused and that the creditworthy testimony of the victim in cases of such nature deserved acceptance.
The Court took note of the medical evidence adduced, wherein it was stated that no fresh external injury marks was present, and hymen was intact. The Court relied on State of Rajasthan v. Om Prakash, (2002) 5 SCC 745 and Rafiq v. State of U.P. (1980) 4 SCC 262 and B.C. Deva v. State of Karnataka (2007) 12 SCC 122 and opined that it was needless to stated that corroboration of the prosecutrix’s testimony was a sine qua non to bring home the guilt of the accused. The testimony of the prosecutrix, if well founded and trustworthy, was by itself sufficient to convict the accused.
The Court opined that it was necessary for the Courts to have a sensitive approach while dealing with cases of child rape. The effect of such a crime on the mind of the child was likely to be lifelong. The Court opined that the children and more particularly the girl child deserved full protection and need greater care and protection whether in the urban or rural areas. In the present case, victim’s father ravished his minor daughter on numerous occasions for three years who was about eleven years, which demonstrated his mental state or the mindset. Instead of showing fatherly love, affection and protection to the child against the evils of the society, rather made her the victim of lust. It was a case where trust has been betrayed and social values are impaired. Therefore, the victim’s father did not deserve any sympathy and/or leniency. The Court opined that let it not be forgotten that this case was rape on a girl child, only eleven years old at the time of commission of the offence, by her own father. Nothing could be more heinous than a crime committed on the person of a child by her father, the one who was duty-bound to provide her unflinching protection from all harm.
The Court opined that the victim was consistent in her statement and had asserted that her father on several occasions sexually exploited her even after her repeated protests. The victim’s statement had been consistent from the beginning to the end without creating any doubt. In the present case, there was no doubt that being in a position of authority and trust, the accused being the father of the victim, sexually exploited his minor daughter aged about eleven years. Thus, the Court opined that the guilt of the victim’s father had been established beyond reasonable doubt and there was no contravention in the position of law. When the testimony of the victim was creditworthy, trustworthy, unimpeached and inspired confidence, the conviction could be sustained based solely on it.
The Court opined that there was compelling evidence to establish the culpability of victim’s father beyond doubt. Consequently, the sentence awarded to the victim’s father by the Trial Court did not warrant any interference. Therefore, the Court upheld the judgment and order of conviction dated 23-06-2022 and dismissed the present appeal.
[Lalchand Rohra v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2024 SCC OnLine Chh 3187, decided on 09-04-2024]
*Judgment authored by- Justice Arvind Kumar Verma
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Appellant: Mamta Jaiswal, Advocate;
For the Respondent: Sangharsh Pandey, Govt. Advocate.
Buy Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 HERE
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
