Madras High Court upholds life term for man who assaulted, impregnated minor daughter

“The child victim has given evidence in categorical terms that the accused, after her puberty in January 2019, was committing such penetrative sexual assault continually on her. The scan report dated June 30, 2020, would show that the child victim was carrying a 21 weeks 3 days old fetus. The DNA report would also prove that the accused is the biological father of the fetus taken from the child victim,” the order stated. 

Before the High Court, the man had appealed against the life sentencing ruling of a trial court in Thanjavur, which directed that the man was not eligible for any commutation or relaxation of the term and to spend his entire life behind bars. He was also saddled with a Rs 50,000 fine.

The assault

The girl was born in 2004 and had a younger sibling. At the time of their mother’s passing, the maternal aunt was taking care and had custody of the children. In May, 2016, the father took over the children’s custody, and it came on record in court that from around August 2017, the father began sexually abusing the girl. 

Justices A D Jagadish Chandira and B Murugesan found that the girl’s pregnancy was terminated in July, 2020, following a court order, while the foetus was preserved and sent for forensic examination.

The family’s neighbours learnt about the deeds of the man and rescued the girl. However, it was alleged that the neighbour’s husband assaulted her, too. The girl started living with her father thereafter, but in 2019, she complained of stomach pain and was found five months pregnant. The pregnancy was terminated by a court order and DNA testing was carried out to ascertain the paternity of the unborn foetus. The test results proved that the girl’s biological father had impregnated her. 

While defending the man in court, his counsel P Ganapathi Subramanian referred to the other man, who allegedly sexually assaulted the girl, contending that the father alone could not be held responsible. 

Government advocate G Karuppasamy Pandiyan, however, contested the submission of the defense and said that the DNA evidence was “sufficient to sustain the conviction”.

The High Court upheld the punishment and removed the “without commutation” clause in the trial court’s life sentence ruling to say, “To imprisonment for life which shall mean imprisonment for the remainder of the natural life of the sole accused.”