Read Time: 06 minutes

Synopsis

The Delhi High Court recently upheld the 12-year imprisonment awarded to a father guilty of raping his minor daughter.

A bench of Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav said that the testimonies of the child victim, her mother, and her sister, so far as the incident in question was concerned, were consistent and did not suffer from any apparent material inconsistencies.

The bench was hearing a plea filed by a man convicted under Section 6 (aggravated penetrative sexual assault) read with Section 5(n) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, wherein, he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 12 years with a fine of Rs. 10,000.

The counsel appearing for the convict argued that the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the trial court was bad in law and deserved to be set aside. It was also argued that the learned trial court did not appreciate the evidence in a proper perspective, and there were material contradictions and omissions in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses.

It was also alleged that the testimony of the child victim, her mother, and her sister were different from each other. Additionally, it was contended that there were discrepancies regarding who was sleeping in the room when the alleged incident occurred.

It was further alleged that in her testimony, the victim stated that her mother told her that they must teach the appellant a lesson as he was a drunkard and used to beat his wife and children, the counsel for the convict added.

Whereas, the Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the offences committed by the convict were heinous in nature and, therefore, the trial court had rightly convicted him.

Additionally, it was argued that the FSL report also indicated the presence of semen in the articles seized from the prosecutrix as well as the convict. The prosecutrix had herself given her statement against the convict, the APP submitted. 

The bench observed that the statement under Section 313 of the Cr. P.C was recorded much before the production of the FSL report, and therefore the incriminating evidence was not put before the convict. "In view of the aforesaid, the substantial right of the convict stands violated while not putting entire incriminating material before him", the bench added.

The bench while relying on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh & Ors, stated, "Minor contradictions or insignificant discrepancies in the statement of a prosecutrix should not be a ground for throwing out an otherwise reliable prosecution case. Evidence of the victim of sexual assault is enough for conviction and does not require corroboration unless there are compelling reasons for seeking corroboration."

In view of the above, the bench while upholding the conviction, held that the conviction could not be interfered with on the ground of inconsistencies in the evidence of the prosecutrix.