13-year term to man for raping daughter upheld

Tribune News Service

Saurabh Malik

Chandigarh, March 15

In a significant judgment that will change the way the testimony of witnesses turning hostile is treated by the trial courts, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has made it clear that the evidence has to be read and considered in its entirety to see if credence can be lent to it.

Abominable act

In the present case, all parameters of fatherhood were maligned by the father when he committed the shameful and abominable act of rape upon his daughter. Justice Ritu Bahri & Justice Ashok Kumar Verma, Punjab & Haryana HC

The assertion came as the Bench of Justice Ritu Bahri and Justice Ashok Kumar Verma dismissed an appeal filed by a father sentenced to 13 years’ rigorous imprisonment by Kurukshetra Additional Sessions Judge (Exclusive Court for Heinous Crimes against Women) in June 2016. One of the arguments before the Bench was that the prosecutrix turned hostile and denied the contents of the complaint in her cross-examination.

Speaking for the Bench, Justice Verma said, “The children look to their fathers to lay down the socio-moral rules and enforce these. They also look to their fathers to provide a feeling of security, both physical and emotional. But in the present case, all these parameters of fatherhood were maligned by the father when he committed the shameful and abominable act of rape upon his own daughter,” Justice Verma said.

Referring to the arguments on the prosecutrix turning hostile, Justice Verma observed that she testified twice to her rape or sexual assault by her father. She did it initially before the Magistrate in her statement under Section 164 of the CrPC and then in the witness box before the trial court. A reasonable explanation behind levelling serious allegations by the daughter was not furnished by the appellant/ accused.

She duly supported the prosecution’s case in her examination-in-chief, but turned hostile in cross-examination. “The court has to be very careful, as prima facie, a witness who makes different statements at different times has no regard for the truth. His evidence has to be read and considered as a whole with a view to find out whether any weight should be attached to it,” Justice Verma added.

The Bench added that it was also not convinced with the arguments by the counsel for the appellant that semen, as per the FSL report, could not be detected. “Merely because semen could not be found, does not mean that offence under POCSO Act has not been committed.”

About The Author

Tribune News Service

The Tribune News Service brings you the latest news, analysis and insights from the region, India and around the world. Follow the Tribune News Service for a wide-ranging coverage of events as they unfold, with perspective and clarity.

Join Whatsapp Channel of The Tribune for latest updates.

#pocso