In a significant judgment, the Sikkim High Court has upheld the conviction of a 24-year-old man for repeatedly raping his 80-year-old maternal grandmother. The Division Bench comprising Justice Meenakshi Madan Rai and Justice Bhaskar Raj Pradhan delivered the verdict in Criminal Appeal No. 07 of 2023.
Background of the Case
The case originated from a horrific series of incidents where the appellant, who was living with his grandmother (the victim), mother, and father, sexually assaulted the elderly woman multiple times. The first assault reportedly occurred in January-February 2022, followed by subsequent incidents in March-April and April-May of the same year.
The victim, out of shame and fear of threats from her grandson, initially did not disclose the assaults to anyone. However, after the third incident, she fled to a neighbour’s house and later stayed with another person named Kamal Rai for 16-17 days. When her daughter (the appellant’s mother) returned and tried to bring her home, the victim refused and revealed the repeated sexual assaults.
On May 8, 2022, the victim, accompanied by her daughter, filed a police complaint. The accused was subsequently charged under Sections 376(2)(f) (rape on a woman related to the accused), 376(2)(n) (committing rape repeatedly on the same woman), and 506 (criminal intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code.
Legal Issues and Court’s Decision
The primary issues before the court were the reliability of the victim’s testimony, the delay in reporting the crime, and the sufficiency of evidence to uphold the conviction.
1. Victim’s Testimony: The court found the victim’s testimony to be reliable and trustworthy. Justice Meenakshi Madan Rai noted, “If a Court finds that the testimony of a prosecutrix inspires the confidence of the Court and is found reliable and trustworthy, the Court can rely on her sole testimony for convicting the accused and need not look for corroboration of her testimony elsewhere”.
2. Delay in Reporting: Addressing the delay in filing the FIR, the court referred to Supreme Court precedents, stating that such delays are not necessarily fatal to the prosecution’s case, especially in cases involving close relatives. The court observed, “It would naturally explain the victim’s reluctance to talk about the incident, leave alone the daunting task of reporting the matter to the Police”.
3. Corroborative Evidence: The court noted that the victim’s testimony was corroborated by her daughter (PW-3) and another witness (PW-5) who had sheltered the victim. The medical examination, while not conclusive, did not rule out sexual assault.
Court’s Observations
The High Court emphasized the significance of the victim and her daughter testifying against their own grandson/son. Justice Rai remarked, “Both PW-2 and PW-3 have lodged the report against their own grandson/son, which unless it was for genuine reasons, no grandparent or mother would have done otherwise”.
The court also highlighted the victim’s vulnerability and the breach of trust involved in the crime. “The Learned Trial Court therefore found no reason to disbelieve the victim, a senior citizen, who at her age was unlikely to make such an allegation against her own grandchild unless she was left with no option,” the judgment stated.
Also Read
Conclusion
The High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding both the conviction and the sentence imposed by the Fast Track Court in West Sikkim. The appellant remains sentenced to rigorous life imprisonment for the rape charges and two years for criminal intimidation, along with fines.
