"Betrayal of Trust: Father's Sexual Assault on Daughter Leads to Life Imprisonment"

 

This case represents one of the most disturbing forms of child sexual abuse - a father repeatedly assaulting his own daughters over several years. The Patna High Court, through Justices A.M. Badar and Rajesh Kumar Verma, delivered a judgment that upheld the conviction of a father for sexually assaulting his eldest daughter, reaffirming the court's commitment to protecting children from such heinous crimes.

Background of the Case

The case began when a young girl (referred to as D-1 in court documents to protect her identity) filed a police report against her father on July 30, 2013, at the Mahila Police Station in Bhojpur, Bihar. She alleged that her father had been sexually assaulting her repeatedly since before 2007, when she was only about 10 years old. The abuse continued until she finally gathered the courage to report it.

The family situation was already troubled - the girl's mother had died by hanging in November 2007. According to the victim, even during her mother's lifetime, there were frequent quarrels between her parents because of the father's inappropriate behavior toward the daughters.

The Allegations

The victim's allegations were grave and disturbing:

1. Her father had been committing "dirty deeds" with both her and her younger sister (referred to as D-2).
2. After her mother's death, the father would administer sleep-inducing drugs to facilitate the assault.
3. Due to the repeated sexual assault, the victim became pregnant in 2009, and her father arranged for an abortion through a female doctor.
4. The father would show obscene videos to the daughters and ask them to re-enact what they saw.
5. He would threaten the girls to prevent them from disclosing the abuse.

Investigation and Trial

Following the complaint, the police conducted an investigation. The victims were sent for medical examination at Sadar Hospital, Ara, where Dr. Pushpa (PW-5) examined them on July 31, 2013. The prosecution presented six witnesses:

1. PW-1: The eldest daughter (D-1), the main victim
2. PW-2: The younger daughter (D-2)
3. PW-3: The maternal aunt of the victims
4. PW-4: The Judicial Magistrate who recorded the victims' statements
5. PW-5: Dr. Pushpa, who conducted the medical examination
6. PW-6: The Investigating Officer

The accused denied all allegations, claiming that his sister-in-law (the victims' maternal aunt) had falsely implicated him because he had refused to marry her. He presented two defense witnesses: his maidservant (DW-1) and his brother (DW-2).

After examining all evidence, the trial court found the accused guilty under Section 376(i) of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 6 and 10 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012. He was sentenced to life imprisonment.

The Appeal

The convicted father appealed to the Patna High Court, arguing that:

1. The prosecution failed to prove that the victims were minors at the time of the alleged offenses.
2. The prosecution did not comply with Rule 12 of the Juvenile Justice Rules, 2007, for determining the age of the victims.
3. It was improbable that such offenses could be committed in a small two-room house where other family members lived and with a police station nearby.
4. The prosecution failed to examine the victims' brothers or provide evidence of the alleged abortion.

High Court's Analysis

The High Court conducted a thorough re-examination of the evidence and made several key observations:

On Determining the Age of the Victims

The court acknowledged that while the prosecution had not produced the victims' birth certificates or school records, there was substantial evidence to establish that they were minors:

1. D-1 stated her age as 17 years when testifying in April 2014, which was consistent with her statement of being 16 when filing the FIR in July 2013.
2. D-2 stated her age as 15 years when testifying in April 2014.
3. Medical examination through ossification tests determined D-1's age to be between 17-19 years and D-2's age to be between 15-17 years in July 2013.

The court noted that these testimonies about age went unchallenged during cross-examination. Following Rule 12 of the Juvenile Justice Rules, which provides that in cases where exact age cannot be determined, the benefit should be given to the child by considering the lower age within a margin of one year, the court concluded that both victims were minors during the period of abuse.

On the Credibility of the Victims' Testimonies

The High Court found the victims' testimonies to be reliable and consistent:

1. There was no apparent motive for D-1 to falsely implicate her father after living with him for six years following her mother's death.
2. D-2's testimony corroborated her sister's account of the abuse.
3. The medical evidence supported the victims' claims, as D-1's hymen was found not intact, corroborating her testimony of penetrative sexual assault.
4. The victims' statements recorded by the Judicial Magistrate were consistent with their testimonies in court.

On the Defense's Arguments

The court rejected the defense's claims:

1. The testimony of the maidservant (DW-1) was found unreliable, as she showed no real knowledge of the family's circumstances.
2. The brother's (DW-2) claim that the victims were falsely implicating their father at the aunt's instigation was dismissed as implausible.
3. The argument that such crimes could not occur in a small house near a police station was rejected in light of the compelling evidence.

The Court's Reasoning

The High Court emphasized several important legal principles in its judgment:

1. Trauma of Sexual Assault: "Rape is a ghastly act which leaves the victim shattered for life as it causes not only physical but emotional and psychological trauma to the victim. Sexual activities with young girls of immature age have a traumatic effect on them, which persists throughout their life and often destruct whole personality of the victim."

2. Credibility of Victim Testimony: "The victim of a sexual assault is not an accomplice, but she is a victim of lust of another person. Her evidence stands at a higher pedestal than that of an injured witness."

3. Sensitivity in Dealing with Sexual Assault Cases: Citing the Supreme Court's decision in State of Punjab v. Gurmeet Singh (1996), the court emphasized that "The Courts should examine the broader probabilities of a case and not get swayed by minor contradictions or insignificant discrepancies in the statement of the prosecutrix."

4. Rarity of False Allegations: Referring to the Supreme Court's observations in Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai v. State of Gujarat (1983), the court noted that "rarely a girl or woman in India makes a false allegation of sexual assault" due to the social stigma attached to such incidents.

The Verdict

The High Court dismissed the appeal, affirming that:

1. The prosecution had established that the accused committed aggravated penetrative sexual assault on his daughter (PW-1) repeatedly, violating Section 6 of the POCSO Act.
2. The accused was guilty under Section 376(2)(k)(n) of the Indian Penal Code for committing rape on a person under his control or dominance.
3. The life imprisonment sentence was appropriate given the gravity of the crimes.

Significance of the Judgment

This case highlights several important aspects of India's legal approach to child sexual abuse:

1. Implementation of POCSO Act: The court's application of the POCSO Act demonstrates its importance in providing enhanced protection to child victims of sexual abuse.

2. Sensitivity to Trauma: The judgment shows awareness of the long-lasting psychological impact of sexual abuse on children, especially when perpetrated by a parent.

3. Credibility of Child Witnesses: The court's willingness to accept the unchallenged testimony of child victims reflects a progressive approach to handling child sexual abuse cases.

4. Age Determination: The case illustrates the practical approach to determining the age of victims in the absence of documentary evidence, using medical examination and the principle of giving benefit to the child.

5. Family Dynamics in Abuse Cases: The judgment acknowledges the complex family dynamics that often prevent victims from reporting abuse immediately, especially when the perpetrator is a parent.

Conclusion

This case represents a deeply disturbing instance of parental abuse, where a father betrayed the trust and violated the innocence of his own children. The Patna High Court's judgment sends a strong message about the severity with which such crimes are viewed in the Indian legal system, even when committed within the privacy of a family home.

The court's reasoning demonstrates a nuanced understanding of the psychological aspects of child sexual abuse and the difficulties victims face in reporting such crimes. By upholding the life imprisonment sentence, the court reinforced that the relationship between the perpetrator and the victim - in this case, father and daughter - is considered an aggravating rather than mitigating factor in such heinous crimes.

The judgment serves as a precedent for similar cases, emphasizing that the testimony of child victims of sexual abuse must be given due weight, especially when supported by medical evidence and corroborated by other witnesses. It also underscores the importance of the POCSO Act in providing enhanced protection to child victims of sexual abuse and ensuring appropriate punishment for perpetrators.

Read the full judgement Below;

https://patnahighcourt.gov.in/viewjudgment/NSM5OCMyMDE1IzEjTg==-GmHU6XBwipU=