Read Time: 11 minutes

Synopsis

The Kerala High Court has reduced the sentence of a father convicted of sexually assaulting and raping his minor daughter aged 15 years on multiple occasions for two years. Though the court upheld the conviction, it reduced the sentence of the accused keeping in view his age and the fact that the victim was now married and living a happy life.

In an appeal adjudicated by Justice P.B. Suresh Kumar and Justice C. Pratheep Kumar, the court partially altered the sentence of the convicted father under Section 376 (2)(f) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which penalises raping a woman with whom a man is in a position of trust or authority being a relative or guardian of such woman.

The trial court found the accused father guilty and imposed a life sentence under Section 376 (2)(f), alongside a fine and additional sentences for other charges. The accused challenged this judgment and sentence from the Special Court for trial of offences under the Prevention of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act and Children's Court. He requested a lenient approach, arguing that he is now 57 years old. He also pointed out that the victim has married and is currently living away from his residence.

The case involved the accused, the biological father of the victim, convicted for repeatedly committing rape and penetrative sexual assault on his 15-year-old daughter from April 2015 to August 2017. The father allegedly sexually abused his daughter while her mother went to Singapore due to work commitments. The victim alleged that the abuse continued even after the return of her mother. The victim detailed that she was abused multiple times at her residence and was threatened with death if she revealed the abuse. Due to fear, she had not disclosed the abuse to anyone. However, in October 2017, she fainted at school. Concerned teachers inquired about the cause and whether there were any issues at home. It was then that she first revealed the abuse to her teachers, who subsequently informed the Headmaster. The Headmaster upon learning of the child's disclosure, he instructed a teacher to provide counselling. After the counselling session, the matter was reported to Childline.

The accused was subsequently charged under Section 376 (2)(f) of the IPC, Section 5(l) and (n) of the POCSO Act, Section 506 Part-II of the IPC, and Section 75 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. The trial court sentenced him to life imprisonment under Section 376 (2)(f), a fine of Rupees One Lakh with a default of six months' rigorous imprisonment, and five years' rigorous imprisonment under Section 506 Part-II IPC. Additionally, he received three more years of rigorous imprisonment under Section 75 of the JJ Act. No separate sentences were given under Sections 376 (2)(i) and (n) of the IPC or Sections 5(l) and (n) of the POCSO Act.

The prosecution argued that the sentence was disproportionate, citing the victim's age and trauma as factors that should influence sentencing. It was contended that the lack of detailed statements from the victim was understandable due to her circumstances.

Contrarily, the accused argued that he was being implicated in a false case as the victim did not like her mother going to Singapore leaving her alone. It was further contended that she has made several improvements and contradictions in the details mentioned in her First Information Report (FIR) till the testimony before the court.

The court acknowledged that the First Information Report (FIR) and initial victim statements did not need to cover every detail of the abuse, given the victim's age and trauma. Citing precedents, the court recognised that “Being a minor girl of 15 years, she will have her own inhibitions, limitations and difficulties in discussing and disclosing the details of sexual abuse made by her father, to a third person.”

The court stated that it cannot be treated as an omission amounting to contradiction and the victim’s testimony was held to be “genuine, natural and sterling in nature so that it can be relied upon without any corroboration.”

The court further noted that “Unless there is compelling reasons like bitter animosity, a daughter will not raise false allegation of sexual harassment against her own father,” highlighting that the fact that she disliked her mother going to Singapore for work does not provide a valid reason for falsely accusing her father of such a serious offence. “We are not inclined to believe that contention also, as an excuse for implicating her father in a rape case,” the court said.

In assessing the sentencing, the court recognised the gravity of the offence but also the appellant's age and the time already served. The court noted "The accused was aged 50 years at the time of commission of the offence. For the last seven years, he is in jail and now he is 57. As submitted by the learned counsel for the accused, the victim is already married and leading a peaceful life along with her husband and family.”

Conclusively, the High Court upheld the conviction but deemed the original life sentence excessive. The sentence was, thus, modified to rigorous imprisonment for 20 years, instead of the life imprisonment originally imposed by the trial court. The fine and default sentence under Section 376 (2)(f) were sustained. The sentence for Section 506 Part-II of the IPC was reduced to two years of rigorous imprisonment, and the sentence for Section 75 of the JJ Act was reduced to one year of rigorous imprisonment.

 

Cause Title: xxx v State of Kerala [CRL.A NO. 632 OF 2021]