The division judge bench of Justice Sureshwar Thakur and Justice N.S. Shekhawat of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Roop Lal V. State of Punjab held that there can never be a graver and more heinous crime than the father committing rape on his own daughter. The protector then becomes the predator. The father is the fortress and refuge of his daughter. Charged with raping his own daughter under his refuge and fortress is worse than the gamekeeper becoming a poacher and the treasury guard becoming a robber.
BRIEF FACTS
The factual matrix of the case is that the accused, who is the father of the victim repeatedly committed sexual assault and rape on her for 2 months prior to the date of occurrence. The appellant was employed by the complainant to look after the tubewells and the cattles and was provided a room at the tubewell. When the complainant heard the shrieks of the victim from the appellant’s room, then she went towards it and pushed open the door and found that the appellant was naked on the floor and was committing a bad act forcibly with his daughter (victim), who was also naked. Thereafter, the matter was reported to the police and the accused was arrested. The appellant was convicted under 376 IPC by the Additional Session Judge, Jalandhar.
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has contended that the complainant's statement was motivated by a disagreement with the appellant over the payment of his salary, which led to the complaint. When the appellant demanded his salary after working for the complainant for three and a half months, the complainant declined to do so. As a result, they got into a fight, and the complainant got the appellant wrongfully accused in the current case even though the alleged incident never happened. In addition, the complainant wanted to keep the victim because she was single so that she could use her as a servant for the rest of her life. She was able to register a false case with such serious accusations as a result. It was also submitted that the impugned judgment and order passed by the trial court need to be set aside.
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the state has contended that the statement made by the complainant and the victim is trustworthy and the same is corroborated by the medical evidence. It was also submitted that the Spermatozoa were detected in the contents of the Exhibits i.e.Vaginal swabs and vaginal slides.
COURT’S OBSERVATION
The Hon’ble court relied upon the judgment titled State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Chhotey Lal (2011) 2 Supreme Court Cases 550 in which it was held that
“The important thing that the Court has to bear in mind is that what is lost by a rape victim is face. The victim loses value as a person. Ours is a conservative society and, therefore, a woman and more so a young unmarried woman will not put her reputation in peril by alleging falsely about forcible sexual assault. In examining the evidence of the prosecutrix the courts must be alive to the conditions prevalent in the Indian society and must not be swayed by beliefs in other countries. The courts must be sensitive and responsive to the plight of the female victim of sexual assault. Society’s belief and value systems need to be kept uppermost in mind as rape is the worst form of woman’s oppression. A forcible sexual assault brings in humiliation, feeling of disgust, tremendous embarrassment, sense of shame, trauma and lifelong emotional scar to a victim and it is, therefore, most unlikely of a woman, and more so by a young woman, roping in somebody falsely in the crime of rape. The stigma that attaches to the victim of rape in Indian society ordinarily rules out the levelling of false accusations. An Indian woman traditionally will not concoct an untruthful story and bring charges of rape for the purpose of blackmail, hatred, spite or revenge.”
The hon’ble court held that it is a well-settled proposition of law that the conviction for the offense under Section 376 of IPC can be based on the sole testimony of the rape victim. In “State of Punjab Vs. Gurmit Singh, 1996, SCC (Crl.) 316”, and “State of Maharashtra Vs. Chandraprakash Kewalchand Jain, 1990 SCC (Crl) 210”, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that it must not be overlooked that a woman or a girl subjected to sexual assault is not an accomplice to the crime but is a victim of another person’s lust and it is improper and undesirable to test her evidence with a certain amount of suspicion, treating her as if she were an accomplice. The inherent bashfulness of the females and the tendency to conceal outrage of sexual aggression are the factors that the Courts should not overlook. The testimony of the victim in such cases is vital and unless there are compelling reasons, which necessitate looking for corroboration of her statement, the courts should find no difficulty to act on the testimony of a victim of sexual assault alone to convict an accused, where her testimony inspires confidence and is found to be reliable. Seeking corroboration of her statement before relying upon the same, as a rule, in such cases amounts to adding insult to injury.
The hon’ble court held that the evidence of both the said witnesses to be trustworthy, convincing and reliable and it is safe to base the judgement of conviction on the said two witnesses. Further, rejected the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that it is impossible to have sexual intercourse with a minor child of 7 years, whose vagina is not fully developed as to admit a fully grown penis. It has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that a number of pronouncements that the penetration of the male organ within the labia majora or the vulva or pudenda with or without any emission or semen or even an attempt at penetration into the private part of the victim completely, partially or slightly would be enough for the purpose of Section 375 IPC. Then, the high court uphold the judgement of the trial court.
CASE NAME- Roop Lal V. State of Punjab
CITATION- CRA-D-458-DB-2010 (O&M)
DATE-15.09.22
CORUM- Justice Sureshwar Thakur and Justice N.S. Shekhawat
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :