Punjab and Haryana High Court upholds father’s conviction for raping minor

In a case of prolonged incestuous sexual abuse, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has upheld the conviction of a man for repeatedly subjecting his minor daughter to penetrative sexual assault over a period of four years and impregnating her, but declined to confirm the death sentence awarded by the trial court.

Upholding the conviction, the high court ordered the convict to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 30 years, with a specific stipulation that he would not be entitled to premature release or remission before completing the actual sentence.

Modifying the sentence, the Division Bench of Justices Gurvinder Singh Gill and Jasjit Singh Bedi observed: “The accused having subjected his minor daughter to repeated penetrative sexual assault and having impregnated her has committed one of the most heinous crimes of the gravest form and would hardly call for any kind of leniency in the matter of sentence.”

The Bench, at the same time, added the case did not qualify as “rarest of rare”. Referring to Supreme Court judgments where the victim had not been done to death, the Bench asserted: “The facts of the present case cannot be said to be on a footing worse than the said cases inasmuch as in the instant case the victim was not murdered whereas in the cited cases the victim had been murdered.”

The trial court had convicted the accused under Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act and Section 506(II) of the IPC.

Terming the victim’s testimony as “cogent, consistent and credible”, the Bench noted that she had disclosed the continuous sexual assault in her initial statement before the police, reiterated it before the Magistrate and again affirmed it during trial. She had categorically stated that she had been sexually assaulted over four years and threatened with dire consequences if she disclosed the abuse.

Rejecting the defence claim that the victim was in a relationship with a scrap dealer, the court held that this plea could not undermine the victim’s consistent version. “The fact that the victim herself admitted she knew him would rather show that she is a truthful witness and has not tried to conceal any fact.”

On the issue of paternity, the Bench found the DNA evidence clinching: “While it could be said that the DNA profile of the accused would to some extent match with that of the baby being in any case her grandfather, but the instant case is not a case where only a small percentage was found to be matching but it is a case of perfect match.”

Referring to her age, the court noted she was about 17 years old at the time of the FIR. “Under these circumstances, the victim certainly was much less than 16 years at the time when the accused started committing penetrative sexual assault upon her.”