The Aurangabad bench of Bombay High Court recently upheld the conviction and life sentence of a 54-year-old man who raped his 12-year-old daughter. The court said the FIR filed against the man was "not the outcome of false implication (by the victim) at the behest of the mother". "Therefore, for raping his own daughter, which is a heinous crime, the conviction awarded is perfectly legal," a division bench of Justice Vibha V Kankanwadi and Justice Abhay S Waghwase observed. The bench was hearing a criminal appeal by 47-year-old man challenging the April 2016 order of the special court, holding him guilty of rape under IPC and provisions of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act. As per the victim's statement, the appellant, after a quarrel with his wife, took the victim and her sibling to his native place. On their way, he, in inebriated state, took the three children to a nearby field and raped the minor girl. The next morning, when the children insisted, he brought them back to their mother, but she was not at home. The victim then, after coming back from school narrated her ordeal to her mother. "We do not find the conduct on the part of the prosecutrix unnatural. Unless comfort is given to the girl, she will not disclose such facts to anybody. That comfort appears to have been given by the mother .," the bench noted. Referring to a question raised by appellant's lawyer as to how the girl had not fled or not raised any hue and cry, the bench responded that no such question was asked to her in her cross-examination. The bench said she might be "under pressure" since the accused was her father. "The psychology of such girls is required to be considered, and also the fact that all girls will not behave in the same fashion in such a situation. It depends upon the temperament of the person facing a tough situation." ". same is the fact with the testimony of the son. He has supported his sister. The mother will not put her daughter in such a situation just to take revenge.," the bench noted. The HC held, "We are of the opinion that there is no perversity or illegality committed by the trial Judge in holding the accused guilty and convicting him for the aforesaid offences. We do not find any merit in the present appeal and it deserves to be dismissed."
