Claim That Daughter Falsely Accused Father Of Rape Over Discontinuation Of Studies 'Far-Fetched': Bombay High Court Upholds POCSO Conviction

A girl would not accuse her father of a serious charge like rape only on an apprehension that he would discontinue her studies and get her married, said the Bombay High Court while rejecting a theory of 'false implication' raised by a man convicted for raping his own minor daughter. 

A division bench of Justice Manish Pitale and Justice Shreeram Shirsat upheld the March 12, 2020 order of a special court in Mumbai which convicted a man for continuously raping his minor daughter and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment till the remainder of his natural life. 

The man in his appeal challenging the special court's verdict, among other grounds, argued that he had got his elder daughter married due to which she had to discontinue her studies. But the victim, who wanted to study further, apprehended that her father may stop her studies too and thus in a fit of rage, she levelled the allegations against him as she was upset with her father. 

"It was stated that the victim apprehended that her studies would also be discontinued abruptly and that she desired to study and in this backdrop, due to her anger against her own father, she concocted such a false case against him. We find that this theory sought to be floated on behalf of the appellant, cannot be accepted, for the reason that a child may be angry with her parents as it does happen when parents intend to discipline their own child. But, it would be far-fetched to accept that only for this reason, the victim made such serious, drastic and far-reaching allegations against her own father. We refuse to accept this theory sought to be floated on behalf of the appellant," the judges held in the order pronounced on March 9.

According to the prosecution case, on July 27, 2018, a 'Police Didi' program was organised in the Municipal School, where the victim studied. In such programs, girl children are taught about good touch and bad touch and are made aware of various laws for the safety of girls. At this program, the victim, who was then studying in class 10, gathered courage, and met the Counsellor and then along with the School Principal and the Counsellor, lodged an FIR against her own father. 

In her complaint, the girl alleged that her father, a mason worker had been 'inappropriately' touching her ever since she was 10-years-old. When she complained of the same to her mother, a maid servant, there had been no reaction. She alleged that three months prior to her filing the complaint, the father had crossed the limits and had sexually assaulted her at least four times. 

Subsequently, the appellant was arrested and convicted by a special court under various charges of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and also the stringent Protection Of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act. 

In his appeal, the appellant raise several arguments however, the bench found no merit in the said contentions and rejected each of the same. 

"The appellant in the present case, being the father of the victim therefore, even if the contention raised on behalf of the appellant that the prosecution failed to prove the fact that the victim was a minor, is accepted only for the sake of arguments, we find that being the father, the appellant was clearly in a position of trust and authority over the victim and he committed rape on her. Therefore, the ingredients of the offences are clearly made out in the present case and the Trial Court did not err in returning the finding of conviction and sentencing the appellant in the said manner," the judge said. 

With these observations, the bench dismissed the appeal. 

Appearance:

Advocates Fauzan Shaikh, Mohd. Munerul Shaikh, Shashank Shubham and MB Shaikh appeared for Appellant.

Additional Public Prosecutor Sangita Phad represented the State.

Advocates Abhijit Kulkarni, Abhishek Roy, Sweta Shah, Shreyas Zarkar and Gourav Shahane were appointed through Legal Aid to represent the Victim. 

Case Title: SS vs State of Maharashtra (Criminal Appeal 28 of 2021)

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 88