Sakina Tashrifwala
Published on: October 19, 2022 at 20:52 IST
Observing that crimes against minors, particularly sexual assault, are on the rise, the Delhi High Court on Tuesday emphasised the importance of courts “absorbing the legislative wisdom” underlying the passage of the Protection of Children Against Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act.
Rape, a division bench comprising Justice Siddharth Mridul and Justice Anup J. Bhambhani observed, is a horrible crime that is odious not only to the victim but also to society at large.
“A victim’s plight and the shock suffered can be sensed instinctively; as the victim of rape is left heartbroken by the traumatic event, as well as an unforgettable humiliation; being tormented by the recollection of the horrific incident sending her into a condition of terrifying melancholia.”
The bench further emphasised that it is the courts’ responsibility to assess special legislation “in the circumstances of their creation” to maintain consistency and to avoid any unanticipated and unpleasant outcomes.
“Torment on the sufferer has the ability to erode any civilised society’s equilibrium and equanimity. It is true that a murderer destroys a victim’s bodily form, whereas a rapist degrades and defiles the soul of a helpless female,” according to the court.
The statements were made by the court when affirming a man’s conviction and life sentence for raping his niece, a one-year-old new born girl, in 2012.
The appellant was found guilty under Section 376(2)(f) of the IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act, as well as Sections 5 and 3.
On October 31, 2019, he was condemned to life imprisonment.
It was the appellant’s contention before the High Court that, other from the victim’s parents’ statements, no other public witness was examined by the prosecution to show his guilt.
It was also argued that the parents’ testimonies were untrustworthy because of their relationship with the victim. It was claimed that the testimony was uncorroborated.
The court rejected the argument, stating that the two witnesses cannot be characterised as interested witnesses simply because they are the prosecutrix’s parents, and that there was no evidence that they had any motive in framing the appellant for a horrible crime.
According to the court, the parents’ testimony is trustworthy and inspires confidence because they were witnesses to the commission of the offence and were there at the relevant moment.
According to the court, the parents’ testimony is trustworthy and inspires confidence because they were witnesses to the commission of the offence and were there at the relevant moment.
On the claim that there were differences in the parents’ testimonies, the court held that natural discrepancies do occur in witness depositions due to their mental state at the time of the incident, such as shock and horror.
“There is no disputing the position of law, and there can be no disagreement with the concept that when the testimony of the prosecution witnesses is creditworthy, trustworthy, unimpeached, and inspires confidence,” the court said.
The court also stated that the victim’s MLC confirmed that her hymen was torn and that the appellant’s semen was discovered on her undergarments at the time of the crime.
“Let us not forget that this is a case of rape on a girl child who was only one year old at the time of the crime. Nothing is more horrible than a crime against a child,” according to the court.
It was stated, “It is commonplace to say that when dealing with situations of child rape, the Courts must be attentive. The impact of such a crime on a child’s mind is likely to be lifelong.”