In “Indian Setting”, Mother Won’t File False Case Of Sexual Assault Involving Her Daughter: Bombay HC [Read Judgment]
The Bombay High Court recently upheld the conviction of a man for sexually assaulting a ten-year-old girl in Pune, observing that it is highly unlikely for a mother to file a false case of sexual assault involving her daughter in the “Indian setting”.
The observations were made by Justice AM Badar, who was hearing an Appeal filed by one Rajendra Bhima Asudeo challenging his conviction under Section 6 (aggravated penetrative sexual assault) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act) as well as under Sections 354 (assault or criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her modesty) and 506 (criminal intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code.
Asudeo had now asserted that he had been falsely implicated and had pointed out certain inconsistencies in the statements of the witnesses.
The Court, however, noted that there existed no enmity between the girl’s mother and the convict, and in the absence of the same, the mother could not have filed a false case. Justice Badar added, “The said incident reflects on chastity of her teenaged daughter which may harm the prospects of marriage, apart from damage to the honour of the family. Hence, it is not possible to accept the defence version that the appellant/accused is falsely implicated in the crime in question.”
The Court further rejected the contentions that the testimony of the girl’s mothers was unreliable, observing, “No doubt, PW2 Savita has not deposed about the incident in proper sequence, but it needs to be kept in mind that she is a rustic and illiterate woman, earning her livelihood by working as a maidservant. She might not have recollected the incident in proper sequence after passage of time of about 3 to 4 months because of her inadequate intellectual capacity to recollect the incident. However, that by itself, is not sufficient to doubt the prosecution case.”
Besides, the Court opined that even if the girl’s father had not been examined by the prosecution, it would not cast a shadow of doubt on the case as the prosecution had anyway established the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts.
It, therefore, dismissed the Appeal, and upheld the sentence of 10 years rigorous imprisonment imposed on him.Read the Judgment Here