Delhi HC uphelds trial court’s order convicting man of raping minor stepdaughter

The Delhi High Court upheld a man's conviction for raping his minor stepdaughter, emphasizing the severe trauma caused, and sentenced him to 15 years in prison.

The Delhi High Court has upheld a trial court order convicting a man for raping his minor stepdaughter, noting that words such as “tragic” or “unfortunate” are inadequate to describe the trauma inflicted on the victim by her stepfather.

The man was sentenced to 15 years of imprisonment by the trial court in 2022 for the offences of rape and aggravated penetrative sexual assault under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (Pocso) Act. (Getty Images/iStockphoto)

In a judgment uploaded on Thursday, justice Vimal Kumar Yadav stated that the father, someone the children should have been able to rely on for comfort, care, and security, was the perpetrator of sexual assault.

“Tragic and unfortunate would be belittling the trauma undergone by the victims. The man in whom they, as children, were supposed to find comfort, solace and security, turned out to be the perpetrator of sexual assault,” the court said in its 18-page verdict delivered on April 21.

In the present case, the man was sentenced to 15 years of imprisonment by the trial court in 2022 for the offences of rape and aggravated penetrative sexual assault under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (Pocso) Act.

The incident was reported in 2014, after their landlords heard the shrieks of the victim. The incident occurred while the mother was hospitalised caring for her youngest child; the man exploited her absence to rape the victim and molest her younger sister aged nine years. An FIR was registered based on the victim’s statement, in which she revealed enduring repeated ordeal over the 1.5 years preceding the report. However, the younger sister stated that no wrongdoing had occurred.

The man claimed he had been falsely implicated out of resentment stemming from their mother leaving their biological father to live with him. He argued that the prosecution’s case was unreliable, citing alleged inconsistencies in the victims’ and landlords’ testimony. He also contended that the medical examination did not show any injuries on the victims’ bodies. Additionally, he highlighted discrepancies regarding the exact date of the incident and noted that the younger victim denied the assault.

However, the court in its verdict observed that the inconsistencies raised were not material and the victim’s testimony was credible and consistent. It further noted that the man’s insistence on bringing back the victim from the hospital despite the mother’s reluctance due to concerns about his intentions was an incriminating circumstance. It added that the evidence showed that the mother had wanted the victim to remain at the hospital but he brought her home.

It further said, “On the conjoint reading of the testimony of Dr. Minu Keshkar (PW-3) and Ms Anita Chhari (PW-9), it is evident that the victim was examined by Dr Keshkar, who, though, did not find any injury mark etc, but the history given by the victim clearly reflects about the assault being faced by the victim.”