New Delhi: The Delhi High Court has upheld the 10-year jail term awarded to a man for repeatedly raping and committing unnatural sex with his step-daughter, observing that he exploited the innocence of the minor by taking advantage of her loneliness.
Justice S P Garg dismissed the appeal filed by the convict against the judgement passed by a trial court last year, which had sentenced him to 10-year jail after holding him guilty for the offences under sections 376 (rape) and 377 (unnatural offences) of the IPC.
"The victim was a child aged around 13 years and the perpetrator of crime was her own step-father who exploited her innocence and committed rape upon her several times taking advantage of her innocence and loneliness," the court said. According to police, an FIR was lodged in 2012 against the man on the basis of a statement given by the girl's mother that he had been raping and committing unnatural sex with the minor girl since last two years.
The counsel appearing for the man argued in the high court that there were material discrepancies in the prosecution case and his client was not the step-father of the girl. The man also claimed that he was falsely implicated in the case.
While dismissing his appeal, the court noted that in the absence of any prior animosity, the minor girl, who was living with her step-father for the last 10 years, was not expected to level such serious allegations against him.
"No sound reasons exist to disbelieve or suspect her version. Strained relations between the appellant (man) and victim's mother over petty issues were not enough to prompt or force the tiny girl to implicate her father," the court said.
The high court also noted in its verdict that the victim had deposed before the trial court that in absence of her mother, who used to work in a private company, that her step-father was sexually abusing her for the past two years.
"On scrutinizing the entire statement of 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 step-father upon whom they all were dependent for their livelihood," the court said.
Comments
0 comment