The Punjab and Haryana high court recently comprising of a bench of Justice Vivek Puri upheld the seven-year jail term awarded to a Jalandhar-based man convicted of allowing his daughter to be sexually abused for ₹ 100. (Roop Lal v. State of Punjab)
The bench dismissing the plea observed, “The appellant being father of the victim was expected to act as protector of the minor daughter. A father has a significant and dominant position in the life of a daughter. Instead of providing protection and care to the daughter, the appellant has rendered her to be sexually abused by another person for small monetary gains.”
The bench observed that the conviction for the offence under Section 376 of IPC can be based on the sole testimony of the rape victim.
Facts of the case
The victim is a 7/8-year-old girl, who was repeatedly sexually assaulted and raped by her father for about 2 months. On 22-07-2008, the complainant heard the shrieks of the victim coming from the room. On opening the door, she saw that the appellant was naked on the floor and was committing a bad act forcibly with his daughter, who was also naked. On seeing the complainant, the appellant put on his clothes and ran away, leaving the daughter behind with blood stains on her clothes. On the next morning, she alongwith her neighbour Devinder Kumar reported the matter to the police and her statement Ex.PA was recorded by PW-7, ASI Deva Singh, which was converted into FIR.
After the registration of the FIR, the accused was arrested, and the victim was taken to the hospital for medico-legal-examination. The victim stated that she resided along with my Daddy Roop Lal and her remaining sister – brother were residing with her maternal grandmother. She said that Daddy has been committing a wrong act with me for the last two months, he used to tell me to put down the Salwar and when I used to resist then (he) used to beat me and when I used to refuse to put down my salwar then he used to commit wrong act with me after putting down my salwar, when I used to sleep then (he) also used to commit wrong act with me.
Issue before the Court
Whether the verdict of conviction of the appellant that has been rendered by the learned trial Court could, in law, be sustained by this Court.
Contention of the Parties
Learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that the statement made by PW-1 Baljinder Kaur @ Babbu, complainant is motivated as a dispute had arisen between the appellant and Baljinder Kaur regarding the payment of his salary. The appellant had worked for ¾ months for the complainant and when he demanded his salary, the complainant refused to pay it. Consequently, a fight ensued between both of them and the complainant got the appellant falsely implicated in the instant case, even though no such alleged occurrence had taken place. Furthermore, the complainant wanted to retain the victim as she was unmarried, with a view that she may work as a servant for her throughout her life. Consequently, she managed to get a false case registered with such serious allegations. Still further, it was submitted that the acts of accused did not constitute the offence of rape and at the most, the offence under Section 354 of IPC was made out against the appellant. With these submissions, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned trial Court are liable to be set aside by this Court.
The arguments raised by learned counsel for the appellant were seriously contested by the learned State counsel by placing reliance on the testimonies of PW-1 Baljinder Kaur @ Babbu-complainant and PW-2 victim. It has been contended that the statement of the complainant and victim are trustworthy, which has been duly corroborated by the medical evidence. Still further, as per the FSL report, Ex.PW4/C, Spermatozoa were detected in the contents of the Exhibits i.e. Vaginal swabs and vaginal slides. Even the doctor had opined after seeing the FSL report that the possibility of sexual assault having taken place could not be ruled out and it is prayed by learned State counsel that the impugned judgment and order may be upheld.
Courts Observation and Judgment
The bench at the very outset observed, "We find 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 and we uphold the findings of the trial Court in that regard."
The Court cited the State of U.P. v. Chhotey Lal, (2011) 2 SCC 550, whereby it was said that “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 bench dismissing the appeal remarked, "We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant and find no substance in the same. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the complainant made the statement with an oblique motive as there was a dispute between the appellant and the complainant regarding the payment of his salary. It was elaborated by him that the appellant had worked for 3 to 4 months with the complainant and when he demanded his salary, the complainant started quarrelling and foisted a false case on him. In fact the complainant is herself an unmarried girl and it is highly unbelievable that to take a revenge of a petty monitary dispute, she would stoop to such an extent to level false allegations of rape. Even otherwise, we have carefully examined her testimony as PW-1 and found her to be a trustworthy witness.
Even we find no substance in the argument raised on behalf of the appellant that the alleged acts of the appellant do not constitute the offence of rape and at the worst, the offence under Section 354 IPC is made out. In fact, the said argument liable to be rejected, in view of the testimony of PW-2 victim, which is duly supported by the medical evidence.
In view of the finding recorded above, we uphold the impugned judgment and order passed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar and the appeal deserves to be dismissed. The appellant may be taken in custody if on bail in this case, to serve the remaining sentence."
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
