The Chhattisgarh High Court has modified the sentence of a convict found guilty of raping his minor daughter. While upholding the conviction under Section 376(3) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), the Division Bench of Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal reduced the life sentence till natural death to rigorous imprisonment for 20 years. The case, registered as CRA No. 1528 of 2021, was an appeal against the verdict of the Additional Sessions Judge, Dongargarh, who had convicted the appellant in Special Criminal Case No. 04/2019.
Background of the Case
The case originated from an FIR registered at Police Station Bortalab, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. The complaint was lodged by Jyoti Gupta, a member of the Railway Child Help Line, Raipur, who reported that the victim, a minor girl, had fled from her home after being physically abused by her father on February 19, 2019. The victim was found at the Raipur Railway Station in a guardianless condition and was taken into protective custody by the Child Welfare Committee (CWC), which directed the police to register an FIR.
Following the investigation, the appellant was arrested on March 4, 2019, and charged under Section 376 of the IPC and Sections 4 & 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act).
Legal Issues and Court’s Decision
During the trial, the prosecution presented 18 witnesses and 31 documents to establish the appellant’s guilt. The key legal issues before the High Court included:
Credibility of the Prosecutrix’s Testimony – The appellant’s counsel, Advocate Govind Dewangan, argued that the victim’s statement contained inconsistencies, lacked corroboration, and that her age was not conclusively proven through documentary evidence or an ossification test. However, the High Court reaffirmed that the testimony of a sexual assault survivor should be given due weight without requiring corroboration unless circumstances warrant otherwise.
Age of the Victim – The prosecution submitted school records indicating that the victim was born on February 21, 2004, thereby establishing her minor status at the time of the incident. The court upheld this documentary evidence as sufficient proof of age.
Delay in Lodging FIR – The defense contended that the delay in lodging the FIR weakened the prosecution’s case. However, the court observed that in cases of sexual offenses, delays in reporting are common due to the stigma and trauma attached to such crimes.
Key Observations by the High Court
In delivering the judgment, the High Court underscored the significance of treating the victim’s testimony with sensitivity, citing precedents from the Supreme Court. The bench reiterated:
“A prosecutrix of a sex offense cannot be put on par with an accomplice. She is in fact a victim of the crime. If the totality of the circumstances appearing on the record discloses that the prosecutrix does not have a strong motive to falsely implicate the accused, the court should ordinarily have no hesitation in accepting her evidence.”
The court also referred to State of Punjab v. Gurmeet Singh (1996) and Ranjit Hazarika v. State of Assam (1998), emphasizing that rape survivors’ testimonies stand on par with those of injured witnesses and should not be treated with suspicion.
Final Verdict
While upholding the conviction, the High Court found the sentence of life imprisonment till natural death to be excessive. Instead, it modified the punishment to 20 years of rigorous imprisonment. The fine of Rs. 500 and the default sentence of one month rigorous imprisonment were upheld.
The appellant, who has been in custody since March 4, 2019, was directed to serve the modified sentence. The court further instructed that a copy of the judgment be sent to the Superintendent of Jail and informed the appellant about his right to appeal before the Supreme Court with legal aid assistance.
