Read Time: 07 minutes

Synopsis

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court recently upheld the life imprisonment of a stepfather convicted of raping and impregnating his minor stepdaughter. 

The court dismissed the appeal filed by the accused stepfather and reaffirmed the trial court's decision, emphasizing the need for stringent punishment in such cases to safeguard children.

Court highlighted that in many cases, the offence is committed by close relatives of the victim. "In our country, number of children face sexual assault by close relatives viz., father, brother, uncle, grandfather or close family friends," said the court. 

Court pointed out "the most shocking" news about child sexual abuse in India that in all child sexual abuse cases which were part of the National Crime Records Bureau, (NCRB, ) most of the sexual abusers were known to the children.

Therefore, taking a serious view, the bench of Justices G.R. Swaminathan and R. Poornima emphasized the need for the State to take decisive action by enacting stricter laws and imposing harsh penalties on family members or close friends involved in sexual offences.

The state should take immediate steps to protect the children from the sexual offence by providing awareness programme in all television channels, theatre, schools, the bench added. 

Background of the Appeal

The appellant had been sentenced to life imprisonment in 2020 by the Mahila Court, Pudukkottai, under various provisions of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act and the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The victim, aged 15 at the time of the crime, was his stepdaughter.

The abuse came to light when the victim was found to be six months pregnant during a medical check-up. The victim revealed that her stepfather had raped her twice, threatening her with harm to rest of the family if she disclosed the incidents. The prosecution presented evidence corroborating the victim's testimony, including medical reports confirming her pregnancy.

Court's Observations

Delivering the judgment, the division bench rejected the defense's argument that the delay in lodging the complaint weakened the prosecution's case. The court highlighted that societal stigma, fear, and familial pressures often prevent victims of sexual abuse from coming forward immediately.

Court also dismissed contentions about minor discrepancies in the victim’s statements, citing that a young survivor of such traumatic experiences cannot be expected to narrate events with mechanical precision.

Court said that the case was the pathetic story of a child who had lost her biological father when she was only four months old and her mother married the accused with fond hope that he would look after her minor child. "But the accused shattered her faith," it said. 

Court also stressed the trauma experienced by the victim, who had believed the accused to be her father since childhood but had her expectations shattered, causing unexplainable physical and psychological injury.

"The physical injury could be healed by efflux of time but the mental agony undergone by the child would subsist till her lifetime," said the court.

Furthermore, court also pointed out the stigma around such cases. It said, "Many of cases are left unreported due to the family prestige and future life of the child. Therefore, many accused escape without punishment".