A special fast-track court in Kerala’s Mallapuram has sentenced a man named Muhammad H. to 101 years of jail time and life imprisonment for raping his minor daughter under various provisions of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act), Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Juvenile Justice Act (JJ Act).
Last week, the court, while sentencing the 43-year-old man, woefully expressed the impact the heinous crime would have on the girl for life.
“The accused is the father of the minor who is bound to protect her
has done the heinous crime on her.
It started from her tender years and continued till she became pregnant with him at the age of 16. It cannot be equated with the usual sex crimes. Though the accused comes from an educationally and economically backward family, he deserves no mercy,” the court presided by Smt Resmi S noted.
The man began sexually assaulting his daughter when she was 10 years old and, upon attaining 12 years of age, subjected her to aggravated sexual assault by raping her. At the same time, her mother was asleep or not at home.
When she was 16, the girl fell pregnant, after which she was taken to the hospital by her father. The hospital examined her and said that she was three months pregnant. Though the man told her daughter not to disclose this to anyone, the police took her statement to the hospital, after which her pregnancy was terminated.
She was then taken to a children’s home in Manjeri. The minor victim gave her statement to the magistrate and submitted evidence to the judge. The DNA sample was also submitted before the judge along with the foetus of the minor victim, which established that Muhammad H. was the biological father of the foetus.
The statement of the mother of the child victim also pointed out that her daughter had held her father and grandfather responsible for the pregnancy. Other members of the family also testified against the accused man.
The main contention of the defence was that the victim was staying at an orphanage, from where she did her studies when the alleged sexual assault took place and that it was only once a week or month that the children would go back home.
Further, it was the contention of the defence that the father himself brought the girl to the hospital after she complained of vomiting and dizziness. In fact, the defence contended that the victim had claimed sexual assault by her grandfather as well as that she had eloped with a boy, against whom a POCSO case was registered and that the date of pregnancy and her eloping with the boy coincided.
However, the girl stated that she had only done so because of the constant abuse at home, and she never had any love affair with the boy.
The court noted the FSL report, which confirmed that Muhammad H. was the biological father of the foetus. The scientific examiner said the father shares 50% of the DNA with the child. In this case, the percentage of such probability was noted in her lab worksheet.
In this light, the court stated that DNA is a conclusive result. The Supreme Court’s decision in Aparna Ajinkya Firodia v. Ajinkya Arun Firodia (2023 KHC 6155) had already held that “in case of disputed paternity of a child by mere comparison of DNA obtained from the body fluid or body tissues of the child with his parents, offer infallible evidence of biological parentage”.
“Thus, the medical and scientific evidence in the case corroborates the allegation of sexual abuse on minor PW2 by the accused. No contradictions were pointed out in the deposition of PW2 compared with her FIS and previous statements. The oral evidence given by mother PW1 that the accused had slept with PW2 also corroborates the evidence of PW2,” said the court.
The court stated that the overall evidence proved the offence of rape and penetrative sexual assault on the minor by her father when she was below twelve years of age and after that. “The accused, being the father of the minor, has misused the trust of the minor and his authority over her,” court said, adding that the offences under offences under sections 354A(2), 354A(1)(i), 376AB, 376(3), 376(2)(n), 376(2)(f), 506(ii) IPC and sections 10 read with 9(m), 10 9(n), 6 read with 5(m), 5(l), 5(n) and 5(j)(ii)of the POCSO Act and s. 75 of the Juvenile Justice Act are proved against him.
“Further, such acts on the part of the parent towards the child who has trust in the parent, especially when the girl child believes the father is her protector, are having a heavy impact on her whole future life.
The impact of such crimes on society is also to be considered. Such offences deserve deterrent punishment,” the court said while sentencing him to 101 years and a life sentence. It was further pointed out that the punishment of life imprisonment shall come into effect once the other sentences and default sentences are suffered by him.
