Father’s Conviction For Raping Minor Daughter Stands As Karnataka HC Cuts Life Term To 10 Years

The appellant was convicted by the Principal Sessions Judge, Kodagu, for offences under Sections 376(2)(i) and (n), 504, 324 and 506 of the IPC and Sections 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act.

The prosecution case was that the appellant sexually assaulted his ten-year-old daughter, threatened her, and later assaulted his wife, who reported the matter after learning what had happened

On appeal, the appellant relied, among other things, on delay in reporting, alleged inconsistencies in the witnesses’ evidence, and the absence of a charge concerning a further alleged incident two days before the complaint

The High Court considered the evidence of the victim, her mother and her brother, as well as the medical and forensic evidence

The Court considered Sections 376(2)(i) and (n), 504, 324 and 506 of the IPC and Sections 4, 6 and 42 of the POCSO Act.

It applied Section 42 of the POCSO Act to hold that, where the conduct is punishable under both the IPC and the POCSO Act, the offender is to be sentenced under the law providing the greater punishment; accordingly, separate sentences under Sections 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act were not warranted in this case

No judicial precedent was cited.

The Court accepted the victim’s account of the assault, noting that her evidence was supported by her mother’s testimony and her brother’s evidence that he saw his father lying over the victim and was threatened when he intervened

The medical evidence recorded a fresh hymenal injury and evidence of genital assault, although the forensic report did not show signs of vaginal or anal intercourse

The Court therefore found that the appellant had committed penetrative sexual assault and had threatened the victim and assaulted the complainant, causing simple injuries.

It separately concluded that, under Section 42 of the POCSO Act, separate sentences under the IPC and POCSO provisions were not warranted.

In fixing the sentence, it referred to the appellant’s custody and lack of criminal antecedents

The convictions were confirmed, including the convictions under the POCSO Act, but the sentences under Sections 4 and 6 of that Act were set aside.

The sentence for the offence under Section 376(2)(i) of the IPC was modified to rigorous imprisonment for ten years and a fine of ₹25,000, with two years’ simple imprisonment in default; the sentences under Sections 504, 324 and 506 of the IPC were confirmed, and all sentences were directed to run concurrently

The direction for the District Legal Services Authority, Kodagu, to pay compensation to the victim within three months, if not already paid, was maintained