Kerala HC reduces sentence of man convicted of sexually abusing his minor daughter

The Kerala High Court has reduced the sentence of a man convicted of multiple sexual assaults and rapes of his minor daughter, aged 15, between 2015 and 2017, due to his age and the fact that the girl is now married.

The bench comprising PB Suresh Kumar and C Pratheep Kumar partially modified the sentence of the man who was convicted under Section 376 (2)(f) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which criminalises rape of a woman where a man is in a position of trust or authority as the woman’s relative or guardian. The trial court had convicted the accused and imposed on him life imprisonment under Section 376 (2)(f) along with fine and additional punishment for other charges.

The accused challenged this verdict and the sentence passed by the Special Court for Trying Offences under the Prevention of Sexual Offences of Children (POCSO) Act and the Children’s Court. He sought lenient treatment, arguing that he is now 57 years old. He also pointed out that the girl is married and is not currently residing with him.

According to the prosecution, the man sexually abused his daughter while her mother was away in Singapore for work. The girl alleged the abuse continued even after her mother returned. She gave details and said she was threatened if she told anyone. However, in October 2017, she fainted at school. Concerned teachers enquired about the cause and whether there were any problems at home. It was then that she first reported the abuse to her teachers, who then informed the school’s principal. The school’s principal assigned a teacher to provide counselling and report the matter to Childline.

The prosecution argued that the sentence was disproportionate, citing the girl’s age and trauma as factors that should influence the verdict. It was argued that the girl’s lack of detailed testimony was understandable given her circumstances.

The accused argued that he was involved in a false case as the girl did not agree to her mother going to Singapore. It was further alleged that she had made several improvements and contradictions in the details mentioned in her First Information Report (FIR) until her statement in court.

The court acknowledged that the FIR and initial statements did not need to cover every detail of the abuse, given her age and trauma. Citing precedents, the court observed, “As a minor girl of 15 years, she will have her own inhibitions, limitations and difficulties in discussing and disclosing the details of sexual abuse by her father with a third person.”

The court found that this could not be considered an omission constituting a contradiction and considered the victim’s statement to be “genuine, natural and serious, so that it can be relied upon without any corroboration”.

The court further observed that “unless there are compelling reasons such as bitter animosity, a daughter will not falsely accuse her own father of sexual harassment.” It stressed that her dislike of her mother’s job in Singapore was not a valid reason to falsely accuse her father of such a serious offence. “We are not inclined to believe this allegation also as an excuse for implicating her father in a rape case,” the court said.

In its decision, the court took into account the seriousness of the crime, but also the age of the accused and the sentence already served. The court stated: “The accused was 50 years old at the time of committing the crime. He has been in prison for seven years and is now 57. As the accused’s lawyer stated, the victim is already married and leads a peaceful life with her husband and family.”

Finally, the Supreme Court confirmed the conviction but held that the original life sentence was excessive. The sentence was therefore commuted from the life sentence originally imposed by the court to 20 years imprisonment. The fine and default judgment under Section 376(2)(f) were confirmed. The sentence under Section 506 Part II of the IPC was reduced to two years imprisonment and the sentence under Section 75 of the JJ Act was reduced to one year imprisonment.

Stay updated on the latest developments on the unrest in Bangladesh in our live blog.