‘Far-fetched’ that daughter will accuse father of rape out of anger: Bombay High Court upholds life term under POCSO Act

What was the case?

• The prosecution’s case began with a statement the victim gave to the police in 2018, in which she accused her father of sexually abusing her.
• She stated that the inappropriate touching began when she was around 10 years old and escalated to sexual assault on multiple occasions in the months preceding the lodging of the First Information Report (FIR).
• The girl revealed the abuse after gaining courage during a school awareness programme conducted by the police and counsellors, following which the matter was reported to the school authorities and eventually to the police.
• After the investigation, the accused was charged under Section 376(2)(f) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Charges were also filed under sections 6 and 9(n), read with Section 10, of the POCSO Act.
• The trial court convicted him in March 2020 and imposed life imprisonment for the remainder of his life.
• He challenged the conviction before the high court.

Arguments

• The counsel appealing for the appellant submitted that the conviction and sentence deserved to be set aside on the ground that the prosecution failed to prove the victim was a minor when the alleged incidents took place.
• Regarding the victim’s age, the counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the evidence on record was insufficient to prove the victim was a minor at the time of the alleged incidents and when the FIR was registered.
• On the other hand, the additional public prosecutor contended that the prosecution led detailed documentary and oral evidence to prove the victim was under 18 years of age at the time of the incidents and FIR registration; therefore, the POCSO provisions were correctly invoked.

Court’s observations

• Whenever documentary material is sought to be made the basis of the determination of date of birth, it has to be analysed on the basis of section 35 (relevance of entry in public record) of the Evidence Act.
• The documents that are public documents or official documents in nature and are maintained in the discharge of official duty, have to be given greater credibility.
• School records and documentary evidence have to be given primacy, and in the face of such credible material being available, there was no necessity to undertake any medical or ossification test to determine the age of the victim.
• Such material clearly indicated the date of birth of the victim, thereby proving that she was indeed a minor at the time when the incidents took place. The court found such material to be credible and believable, and stated that the trial court committed no error in relying upon the same to hold that the appellant was correctly prosecuted under the POCSO Act.

• The appellant has been convicted and sentenced under section 376(2)(f) of the IPC. The said provision pertains to an accused who, being a relative, guardian or teacher or a person in a position of trust or authority towards the woman, commits rape on such a woman.
• The appellant, being the father of the victim, was clearly covered under the said provision and therefore, even if the contention raised on behalf of the appellant that the prosecution failed to prove the fact that the victim was a minor, is accepted only for the sake of arguments, we find that being the father, the appellant was clearly in a position of trust and authority over the victim and he committed rape on her.
• Therefore, the ingredients of the said offence are clearly made out in the present case.
• Once the court finds that the accused has been proved guilty of an offence under section 376(2) and its various clauses, as also the fact that the court reaches a conclusion about the accused deserving a sentence of imprisonment for life, there is no discretion left in the court but to sentence the appellant for imprisonment for the remainder of his life.