Delhi High Court has upheld the Conviction of a man for repeatedly raping his step-daughter aged around 12 years. The High Court has dismissed the appeal filed by Accused-Yogesh challenging the legality and correctness of a judgment of Addl. Sessions Judge by which he was held guilty for committing offences punishable under Sections 376/377 IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years with fine `2,000/- under Section 376 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for five years with fine `1,000/- under Section 377 IPC.
During the trial the Victim was declared hostile and was cross-examined by the Addl. Public Prosecutor after Court’s permission. In the cross-examination, she admitted that the accused had committed rape upon her for the last about two years after putting her in fear. The accused used to come to the house after consuming liquor and commit rape upon her. Due to fear, she did not tell anything to anybody.
It is submitted for the Appellant that the prosecution was unable to establish if any ‘legal’ marriage had taken place between the victim’s mother Rakesh and the appellant; the appellant was not victim’s step-father. Since the appellant used to object victim’s objectionable relations with the boy living in the neighbourhood, he was falsely implicated in the instant case.
But the High Court held that, on scrutinizing the entire statement of the victim, it can be inferred with certitude that no worthwhile discrepancies or infirmities could be extracted in her cross-examination. No ulterior motive was assigned to the child witness aged around 13 years to falsely implicate her own stepfather upon whom they all were dependent for their livelihood.
Dismissing the arguments, Justice S.P.Garg has held that, in the absence of any prior animosity or ill-will, the Victim, appellant’s step-daughter living with him for the last about ten years is not expected to level serious allegations of rape against her own father.
“She was not going to be benefitted by making so serious imputations. No sound reasons exist to disbelieve or suspect her version. Strained relations between the appellant and victim’s mother over petty issues were not enough to prompt or force the tiny girl to implicate her father”, said the Court
Read the Judgment here.