Law Insider India

Legal News, Current Trends and Legal Insight | Supreme Court of India and High Courts

‘Child Rape is Most Barbarous and Worst Form of Lust for Sex’: P&H HC Rejects Convicts’ Appeal

4 min read
punjab-haryana-high-court LAW INSIDER

Khushi Bajpai

Published on: October 9, 2022 at 18:22 IST

The Punjab and Haryana High Court recently noted that child rape cases are the cases of the worst form of lust for sex, where children of tender age are not even spared in the pursuit of sexual pleasure.

The Punjab and Haryana High Court declined to overturn a judgment of the trial court convicting an accused of raping and murdering a 9-year-old girl.

The Court said, “It is a crime not only against society but against the entire humanity. There is nothing more filthy, wicked, and barbarous than this. Because of the stigma linked to such situations in society, many of them go unreported.”

“Some surveys indicate that the number of child rape cases has sharply increased. Children require more protection and care from guardians and parents as well as from the courts and society at large. In such situations, the Court also bears some of the responsibility for giving these young victims the necessary legal protection.”

“Children are both the natural resources and the future of our nation. In our nation, a girl child’s vulnerability makes her particularly susceptible to rape as well as other forms of sexual, emotional, and financial abuse.”

As a result, the court’s bench of Justice Sureshwar Thakur and Justice N. S. Shekhawat upheld the Additional Sessions Judge Palwal’s judgment and order, which found the defendant guilty of raping and killing a 9-year-old girl and found him guilty under Sections 363, 376(2)(f), 302, and 365 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to life in prison.

We find no ground to interfere with the impugned judgment and order passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Palwal and uphold and affirm the same.

The Court stated, as it rejected the plea of the accused challenging the judgment, “Having played with the life of a minor child aged about 9 years, which has been proved by the prosecution by leading unimpeachable and cogent evidence.”

The Case in Brief:

The father of the 9-year-old victim filed a FIR, saying that the appellant-convict came to his house on April 30, 2009, kidnapped his minor daughter “A” (victim), and then took her away on his bicycle.

His son Manish (PW-3/brother of the victim), who was present, saw this happen. The victim’s father and brother then tried to find the victim but were unable, and the following morning they discovered the victim’s dead body in the fields, still in its undies.

The police apparatus was launched after a FIR was filed against the present appellant under Sections 363, 376(2), and 302 of the IPC based on the father’s testimony.

After being detained by the police, the appellant provided a disclosure statement in which he admitted to concealing a bag in a corner of the maize fields and parking his bicycle at the Palwal Railway Station, both of which were used in the execution of the crime.

The trial court found the appellant guilty and sentenced him to life in prison after giving all the evidence it considered appropriate consideration.

The accused moved to the High Court to contest this decree and judgment.

High Court Observations:

The complainant/father victim’s was put to sharp cross-examination, which he resisted, and the High Court noted that he had no motivation to make a false deposition against the appellant or to implicate him in the current case.

His testimony was believed to be accurate by the court.

Regarding PW-3 Manish’s testimony (the victim’s 11-year-old brother), the Court noted that he had witnessed the appellant removing his sister/victim ‘A’ from their home on a bicycle in the evening and that he knew the appellant since he had been visiting them for employment.

The Court noted that his testimony alone was sufficient to establish the appellant’s guilt because the facts he deposed were reliable.

In light of this, the Court rejected the defense’s contention that PW-2 and PW-3’s testimony should not be taken into consideration because they were both interested witnesses.

The Court made the following observation while noting that the trial court had correctly relied on their testimonies:

In reality, PW-3 Manish was the most logical witness because he knew the appellant. Even though he was the victim’s brother, it was only reasonable for him to be in the vicinity of the incident.

Even he was exposed to cross-examination, and it was determined that his testimony was reliable and consistent.

Additionally, neither the prosecution witness, PW-2, nor the other witnesses have been given any justification for erroneously accusing the appellant Sunil and PW-3 Manish.”

The court also disregarded the defense’s allegation of an alibi, concluding that they had utterly failed to back up their claim with the testimony of the two witnesses.

The High Court upholds and affirms the impugned decision and order made by the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Palwal since it finds no justification to tamper with them.

As a result, the appeal was denied.