“Gross abuse of parental trust” HC refuses to show leniency to man convicted for raping minor daughter

The labourer had approached the high court in appeal, questioning his conviction and the prison term on various grounds

MUMBAI: The Bombay High Court recently refused to show any leniency to a 56-year-old labourer from Nagpur and sentenced him to 20 years of imprisonment for raping his minor daughter multiple times.

Bombay High Court at Fort (Photo by Anshuman Poyrekar/Hindustan Times) (Anshuman Poyrekar/HT PHOTO)

Justice Nivedita P Mehta on Friday said imposing the maximum sentence was justified in the facts and circumstances of the case; 20 years was neither excessive nor disproportionate. “The crime involved gross abuse of paternal trust, systematic exploitation, and devastating emotional and physical harm to a minor girl,” the court said.

“The nature of the offences, especially in light of the relationship between the accused and the victim, aggravates the seriousness of the crime,” said Justice Mehta. “The ends of justice require that such a sexual predator be dealt with sternly and visited with appropriate penal consequences,” the judge added.

The accused was arrested on January 3, 2019, after his neighbour, upon seeing him beat up his 15-year-old daughter, alerted the police. The minor informed the police that she was residing in Nagpur with her father and younger brother, and that her father had been sexually exploiting her for around two years. Based on this, the police registered an FIR under relevant sections of the Indian Penal Code and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012 and eventually on April 29, 2022.

The labourer had approached the high court in appeal, questioning his conviction and the prison term on various grounds. His advocate argued that the prosecution failed to examine independent witnesses, particularly neighbours who were allegedly present during incidents of assault, and claimed that the independent witnesses whom the prosecution examined did not support their case. His counsel also argued that there were no injury marks on the private parts of the survivor, which rendered the allegation of repeated penetrative sexual assault doubtful.

Justice Mehta, however, dismissed the appeal after noticing that the survivor’s testimony was credible and duly corroborated by medical and forensic evidence. “The evidence of the victim, supported by consistent medical and forensic testimony, proves the guilt of the appellant beyond a reasonable doubt,” the court said while rejecting the appeal.

The court said the minor deposed in clear and unequivocal terms that the appellant sexually exploited her for over a period of nearly two years and described the pattern of the abuse, the threats issued by the accused, and his acts of physical violence when she resisted. “Her testimony is consistent, natural, and reflective of the trauma suffered by a child subjected to repeated abuse within the confines of her own home,” said the court.