Kochi: Kerala High Court observed that a woman or girl being of easy virtue or habituated to sexual intercourse cannot be reasons to absolve someone of rape, convicting a man for repeatedly raping his daughter, who was impregnated by him. Justice R Narayana Pisharadi, who considered the case, noted that father is expected to be the ‘fortress and refuge’ of his daughter, adding that when a father rapes his daughter, it was worse than a gamekeeper becoming a poacher or a treasury guard becoming a robber.
The observations by the court came after the victim’s father claimed that he was being falsely implicated in the case, as his daughter has already admitted that she had sexual relations with another person. Rejecting his claims of innocence, the high court further pointed out that DNA analysis of the baby, born in May 2013 as a result of the sexual assault, reveals that the victim’s father was the biological father of the infant too.
‘Even in a case where it is shown that the victim is a girl of easy virtue or a girl habituated to sexual intercourse, it may not be a ground to absolve the accused from the charge of rape. Even assuming that the victim is previously accustomed to sexual intercourse, that is not a decisive question. On the contrary, the question which is required to be adjudicated is, did the accused commit rape on the victim on the occasion complained of. It is the accused who is on trial and not the victim’, the high court said.
The high court also observed that there can never be a graver and heinous crime than the father committing rape on his own daughter. In this case, the high court also noted that due to the rape committed by her father, the victim delivered a male child and therefore, the sufferings endured by her ‘would be beyond imagination’, and under such circumstances, the court said that the accused is not entitled to any leniency in the matter of punishment.
Also read: ‘100 Cr is not just a number, but self-confidence of over 100 Cr people’: Piyush Goyal
The High Court while convicting the man for rape, sentenced him to 12 years in jail, but set aside the trial court’s decision to sentence him to 14 years imprisonment, under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offence (POCSO) Act, since the prosecution was unable to prove the victim was a minor when the rapes occurred between June 2012-January 2013. The high court also set aside the man’s conviction and sentence for criminal intimidation of the victim, noting that the prosecution has not proved that she was being threatened with dire consequences by her father.
Post Your Comments