The Supreme Court on Thursday refused to entertain the plea of a cardiologist convicted for sexually assaulting his seven-year-old daughter, stating in strong terms that such a person is not entitled to any relief.
A bench comprising Justices B V Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma made scathing oral observations during the hearing, rejecting the request for suspension of sentence made on behalf of the doctor, who was convicted by a trial court.
“See the kind of things he has done to the child. You do not deserve any relief. The child has made statements against your client. He is a perverse guy, not entitled to any suspension. They were drunk,” the bench remarked.
The bench further noted, “You can’t do this to your own daughter. Why will a child testify against her own father? She is a small girl who has withstood cross-examination. Man becomes a beast after having a drink. We should not say this, but we are the most liberal bench. If we are not giving bail, there are reasons.”
The court was hearing a plea seeking suspension of sentence filed on behalf of the doctor, who is accused of committing the crime while under the influence of alcohol.
His lawyer contended that the child’s testimony was tutored and pointed out the huge pendency of over 12 lakh cases in the Allahabad High Court, arguing that the appeal would not be heard anytime soon. However, the apex court made it clear that judicial backlog could not be a valid ground for suspending the sentence in such a heinous case.
Eventually, the counsel withdrew the plea and the matter was dismissed as withdrawn.
According to the FIR lodged in the case, the survivor’s mother had accused her estranged husband of sexually assaulting their daughter. She stated that she lived in Varanasi, while her husband, who runs a nursing home, stayed in Haldwani. On March 23, 2018, the father took the child to Haldwani, and on March 30, called his wife to take her back. The minor later confided in her mother, describing the inappropriate acts and referring to her father as a “bad man” who indulged in “bad touch”.
The trial court had convicted the doctor based on the testimony of the survivor and other evidence, leading to the current stage of proceedings.
