Chambers of Ishaan Garg
Ch. No. 217, Western Wing, District & Sessions Court, Tis Hazari, New Delhi, Delhi 110054
+91 8851742417, +91 8800386163
The man was accused of raping his daughter for nearly two years; he was acquitted by the trial court of all charges but the High Court overturned the same.
The Delhi High Court on Tuesday held a man guilty of aggravated penetrative sexual assault (rape) of his own 10-year-old daughter for a period of over two years.
A Division Bench of Justices Suresh Kumar Kait and Manoj Jain concluded that man (referred to as PDD) was guilty of offences under Sections 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO Act) as well as Sections 506 (criminal intimidation) and 323 (voluntarily causing hurt) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
The Bench set aside the trial court order acquitting the man in the case.
The Court observed that the victim girl must have thought that she would find a ‘monastery’ in the lap of her father but little did she realize that he was a ‘monster’.
“We are, thus, of the firm view that learned Trial Court has misread and misinterpreted the evidence and the analysis of the evidence is based on conjectured inferences, necessitating us to interfere with such order of acquittal. Therefore, in view of apparent compelling reason that the finding recorded in order of acquittal is contrary to the evidence, we have no hesitation in reversing the same,” the Court observed.
It, therefore, convicted the man.
“Consequently, we hereby allow both the appeals and hold the respondent (PDD) guilty for commission of offences punishable under Section 6 of POCSO Act and Sections 506 and 323 IPC,” the Bench ruled.
The Court was dealing with the appeals filed by the Delhi Police as well as the victim in the case.
The incident dated back to January 19, 2013 when a 12-year-old girl came to the police revealing that her father had been sexually assaulting her for the last two years.
She stated that on January 18, 2013 her father was dead-drunk and when her mother returned home from work, he hurled abuses at her (mother) and beat her up.
Next morning even her brother was beaten up which prompted her to approach the Police.
The man was charged for commission of offences under Section 6 of POCSO, Section 506 IPC (for threatening the victim) and Section 323 IPC (for beating his son and wife).
The trial acquitted him of all charges.
After considering the arguments, the High Court said that the trial court was wrong in getting swayed away by the delay in reporting of the crime and also gave unwarranted weightage to the contradictions, which were superficial in nature.
“On careful perusal of the entire record, we are thus persuaded to hold that the testimony of victim inspires full confidence and there is no reason whatsoever to suspect or distrust her… The substance of the testimony of all the three witnesses appears to have „ring of truth‟ as they all have corroborated one another,” the Court said.
The Division Bench also did not find any reason to hold that it was a motivated or planted case.
“Moreover, we are not inclined to hold that merely because there were minor quarrels between the respondent [accused] and his wife, the victim would churn out a story claiming that she was being sexually assaulted for the last two years. The wrongdoer was not any outsider or stranger. Victim must have thought that she would find a ‘monastery’ in the lap of her father. Little did she realize that he was rather a ‘monster. Unfortunately, neither she nor her mother could muster enough of courage and report the incident to the police. Had they immediately rushed to the police, the victim might have been saved from perpetual trauma,” the Bench said.
Case Title: State v. PDD (2024 Del HC)
