INDIAN SUPREME COURT REVERSES STATE HIGH COURT ON DAUGHTER RAPE

Disturbing that a State High Court refused to take the matter seriously

Terming it as a rarest of rare crime, the Supreme Court has awarded life sentence to a man for raping his minor daughter. “When the perpetrator of the crime is the father against his own daughter it is more rarest of rare which warrants deterrent judicial hand,” the apex court ruled.

Expressing ‘displeasure’ and ‘dismay’ against Himachal Pradesh High Court for acquitting the accused, who was convicted and sentenced to five year’s imprisonment with a fine of Rs 1000 by a trial court, a Bench comprising Justice H.K. Sema and Justice P.P. Naolekar not only awarded maximum punishment for the crime but also enhanced the amount of fine to Rs 25,000. The court also cancelled his bail bond and surety and directed the police to take the accused in custody forthwith.

Setting aside the verdict of the High Court and retaining the trial court judgement, the Bench said, “We are clearly of the view that the High Court has erred in law as well as on facts and thereby committed a grave miscarriage of justice in acquitting the accused by reversing the conviction by the trial court under Section 376 (punishment for rape) IPC”.

The accused Asha Ram, living in the servant quarters attached to Raj Bhawan, had raped his minor daughter on the intervening night of August 28-19, 1988 and the trial court had `prime facie' found him guilty of the crime. Observing that even in ordinary criminal terminology a rape is a crime more heinous than murder as it destroys the very soul of the hapless woman, Justice Sema writing the judgement for the Bench, said, "this is more so when the perpetrator of the grave crime is the father of the victim". "Father is the fortress, refuge and trustee of his daughter. By betraying the trust and taking undue advantage of the trust reposed in him by the daughter. He ravished the chastity of his daughter, jeopardised her future prospect of getting married, enjoying marital and conjugal life, has been totally devastated," the Bench observed. "Not only that, she carries an indelible social stigma on her head and deathless shame as long as she lives," it added.

However, the apex court said, "we record our displeasure and dismay, the way the High Court dealt casually with the offence so grave, as in the case in hand, overlooking the alarming and shocking increase of sexual assault on the minor girls".
"The High Court was swayed by sheer insensitivity totally oblivious of growing menace of sexual violence against minors much less by the father," the Bench said.

It said from evidence it was established that despite strained relation, the family was happily living and there was no reason why the daughter should depose falsely so as to expose her honour and dignity and also expose the family risking outcasting or ostracisation by the society.

The court said, "no girl of self respect and dignity who is conscious of her chastity and having expectations of married life and livelihood would accuse falsely against any person of rape, much less against her father, sacrificing thereby her chastity and also expose the entire family to shame and at risk of condemnation and ostracisation by the society". "It is unthinkable to suggest that the mother would go to the extent of inventing a story of sexual assault of her own daughter and tutor her to narrate a story of sexual assault against a person who is no other than her husband and father of the girl at the risk of bringing down their social status and spoil their reputation in the society as well as family circle to which they belong," the Bench observed.

Report here






Petty prosecution of GI: "A Mesa military man heading to Iraq on Thursday must decide if his drunken driving trial should wait until he comes home in 18 months, or if it should go on without him. Michael Denofre, an Army National Guardsman, contends he was simply sleeping in an idling truck to avoid arguing with his wife -- not driving it drunk. His trial is scheduled to begin Dec. 14 in Maricopa County Superior Court. If convicted, he would be dishonorably discharged. Standing trial in absentia would mean passing on the chance to take the stand, or he can try and postpone it until his return. Either choice is unfair, his attorney said. 'If I continually move (for postponement) for a year and a half, is that still a fair and speedy trial,' said defense attorney Bethany Jacobs. The 30-year-old supply sergeant from Mesa-based 1/ 180th Field Artillery Unit, is going to trial because he contends he did not drive Feb. 5 when Mesa police arrested him outside his wife's house. He was found behind the wheel of his truck drunk, asleep, surrounded by empty beer cans and with the engine running."




(And don't forget your ration of Wicked Thoughts for today)