Chhattisgarh HC commutes father's life term to 20 years for raping minor daughter; cites victim's consistent testimony
RAIPUR: The Chhattisgarh HC has commuted the life imprisonment of a man convicted of raping his minor daughter to 20 years of rigorous imprisonment.
The court, while upholding the conviction, found the original sentence too harsh considering the facts and circumstances of the case.
'While dealing with the said case, where the victim all throughout maintained her allegation against her father to be the person who committed forcible sexual intercourse with her and thus robbed her chastity. Version of the minor victim, in the facts and circumstances of the case, merits acceptance, inasmuch as, the evidence of rape victim is more reliable than even that of an injured witness. The minor contradictions and discrepancies in her testimony are insignificant and immaterial and are liable to be ignored,' the court observed.
A division bench of Justice Rajani Dubey and Justice Sachin Singh Rajput pronounced the order, in an appeal filed by the 38-year-old father. He had challenged the judgment dated September 19, 2019, passed by the Special Judge (POCSO Act), Baikunthpur. The lower court had convicted the father under Section 376(3) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and sentenced him to life imprisonment along with a fine of Rs 1 lakh.
The incident dates back to December 5, 2018, when the then 13-year-old victim reported to the police that her father had sexually assaulted her while she was asleep.
by Taboola
by Taboola
Sponsored Links
Sponsored Links
Promoted Links
Promoted Links
You May Like
¿Padece una enfermedad renal crónica (ERC)?
Trialbee
Más información
Undo
The victim disclosed the incident to a relative five days later, leading to the lodging of an FIR on December 20, 2018.
During the trial, the prosecution examined eight witnesses. The victim testified that she had pain and bleeding following the rape by her father. She also stated that her father had threatened her not to disclose the incident. Dr. Ayushree Rai, who medically examined the victim, found signs of recent hymen rupture, supporting the prosecution's case.
The defence argued that there was an unexplained delay of 15 days in lodging the FIR and that medical evidence did not support the prosecution's claims as no external injuries were found.
The High Court, after reviewing the evidence, noted that while there was a delay in reporting the incident, such delays are common in cases involving sexual assault on minors due to social stigma. The court emphasized that the victim's testimony remained consistent and trustworthy across all stages, from the FIR to the cross-examination.
The court cited a Supreme Court ruling which states that conviction can be based solely on the testimony of the prosecutrix if it inspires confidence and is reliable.
The bench concluded that the prosecution successfully established its case beyond all reasonable doubt and found no fault in the trial court's decision to hold the accused guilty.
However, on the matter of sentencing, the High Court referred to a similar case, Khemchand Rohra v. State of CG, and deemed the life imprisonment sentence to be excessively harsh. The court, therefore, reduced the sentence to 20 years of rigorous imprisonment, while maintaining the fine of Rs 1 lakh.
(The victim's identity has not been revealed to protect her privacy as per Supreme court directives on cases related to sexual assault)
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hans India
40 minutes ago
- Hans India
CBCNC vows to protect properties
Vijayawada: Convention of Baptist Churches of Northern Circars (CBCNC) member M Augustine said here on Monday that the organisation will protect its properties under all circumstances. Speaking to the media during his visit to Vijayawada to attend the High Court-related matters, he expressed concern over illegal activities involving CBCNC assets. He stated that some people, who are not connected to CBCNC, are secretly trying to sell its valuable properties. He confirmed that certain illegal transactions have already taken place, and legal action has been initiated. 'No individual has personal rights over CBCNC properties. These assets are meant to serve the public,' Augustine said. He added that the Kakinada district registrar has already confirmed that the registrations happening in these cases are not legally valid. 'We have also informed the High Court. While we respect the law, we will not tolerate fraud,' he emphasised. Augustine warned the public not to fall for false promises made by fraudsters. 'Some people make ridiculous claims, even saying they would sell the Charminar if given a chance. Don't believe such people,' he said. He reminded everyone of the important work CBCNC has done in education and healthcare, and said that public service remains the organisation's core goal. 'We will continue our mission and serve society,' he assured. Finally, he appealed to the public: 'If anyone spreads false information or tries to sell CBCNC property, please report it to local authorities immediately. These properties are meant for human service. It is everyone's responsibility to protect them.'
News18
an hour ago
- News18
CBI Files Closure Report In Najeeb Ahmed Case: 10 Years On, JNU Student's Disappearance Still A MysteryFive hundred police personnel, sniffer dogs, mounted police, photographers and videographers, 560 witness examinations, analysis of more than 200 documents, testimonies from 116 auto-rickshaw drivers and a cash reward of Rs 10 lakh – despite all of this, the disappearance of JNU student Najeeb Ahmed in October 2016 remains a mystery. A city court on Monday accepted the CBI's closure report filed in the case of Najeeb Ahmed's disappearance. While accepting the report, the court said it is of the opinion that the premier central agency investigated all plausible avenues available and the present closure report stands accepted. "The court also earnestly hopes that Najeeb Ahmed shall be traced soon. This court expresses its regret that while the proceedings in the present case end with this closure report, a closure for Najeeb's mother and other loved ones still eludes us. The CBI is at liberty to reopen the investigation on receipt of any credible information… and shall intimate the court," the court observed. Delhi Police initially handled the investigation, but it was later transferred to the CBI after Najeeb's mother filed a habeas corpus petition in the Delhi High Court expressing dissatisfaction with the probe. In October 2018, the CBI closed its investigation into the case. During the investigation it had also appeared that Najeeb had an altercation with some of his hostel mates on the intervening night of October 14 and 15, 2016. Noting that the court, while accepting the closure report, said while the allegations regarding physical assault and verbal threats against Najeeb on the night of October 14, 2016, are supported by witness testimonies, those events cannot be linked to his subsequent disappearance. 'The CBI has, through the evidence collected (the genuineness of which has not been disputed), satisfactorily explained the whereabouts of the suspects and ruled out their involvement. The mere existence of a motive or hostility, sans any corroborative material, cannot be a substitute for proof,' the court said. Najeeb was an MSc Biotechnology student at JNU and was allotted room number 106 in Mahi-Mandvi hostel of the university. Police found during its investigation that elections of the Mahi-Mandvi hostel were scheduled to take place on October 17, two days before which Najeeb went missing. WHAT HAPPENED? It surfaced that students, namely, Vikrant Kumar, Sunil Pratap Singh and Ankit Kumar Roy, contesting for the post of mess secretary and hostel committee member, were campaigning for the same, on the night of October 14, 2016. They went to visit room number 106 of the hostel, which was opened by Najeeb, and they requested him to cast his vote in their favour. As per the investigation, Najeeb got angry about this, abused, and slapped Vikrant Kumar (one of the campaigning students) twice and questioned him about the red thread (kalava) on his hand. Najeeb also pushed Sunil Pratap Singh, as he tried to intervene. At this point, Ankit Roy went to call the security guard from the ground floor of the hostel. As the situation intensified, the hostel security guard, Rajesh Kumar Jat called and requested the supervisor and hostel wardens. An emergency meeting was called in the warden's office on the same night and, as per the statements of witnesses, Najeeb orally admitted that he had slapped Vikrant without any provocation and also pleaded 'sorry'. Both Vikrant and Najeeb were asked to submit in writing about the incident and Vikrant gave a complaint, mentioning that Najeeb had slapped him, while Najeeb wrote a one line submission: ‘I don't remember.' After the meeting, Najeeb complained of back pain and was taken to Safdarjung Hospital in the JNU ambulance. Najeeb's mother Fatima Nafees, who had been informed about the incident, started for Delhi from Badaun in Uttar Pradesh around 3.30 am along with her younger son, Mujeeb Ahmed. She last spoke to Najeeb around 11.30 am from Anand Vihar, but when she reached the hostel around 1.00 pm, her son was missing and his mobile phone as well as laptop were in the hostel room. According to the witnesses, Najeeb was last seen boarding an auto-rickshaw and was not carrying any luggage. He was wearing the same clothes as the night before. WHO ARE THE SUSPECTS? In this case, there were nine prime suspects – mostly Najeeb's hostel mates with whom he got into a fight. The court said it has perused the digital foot-printing report of the call records and the Central Forensic Science Laboratory reports. It has been revealed, the main accused remained there, from the morning of October 15, 2016 till lunch when the match got over. It further noted that another one of the suspects, went to the library along with Deepak on October 15 at around 10.30 am. Moreover, another suspect – Ankit Kumar Roy – had gone to attend the School of Language on the morning of Octoner in 15 and returned to the hostel only at 1.30 pm, the court noted. THE INVESTIGATION It was on the night of October 15, 2016 when the Vasant Kunj police station (North) in South Delhi, received Najeeb Ahmed's missing complaint which was converted into FIR the next day. Initially, wireless messages were sent out to all units concerned, police stations, districts, and missing person's details were uploaded on Zonal Integrated Police Net (ZIPNET). As the investigation proceeded, police examined staff, students and classmates of Najeeb. Multiple police teams conducted combing operations on the JNU campus as well as in Sanjay Van, behind JNU, twice, with private security personnel from JNU. At the JNU campus, the lands, buildings, water tanks and forest area were also thoroughly searched on December 19 and 20, 2016, in a massive search operation led by a Deputy Commissioner of Police (DCP) consisting about 560 police officials, assisted by sniffer dogs, mounted police, photographers and videographers. At least 560 witnesses, including Ahmed's family members, classmates, hostel administration among doctors treating Najeeb were examined, security guards and students at JNU, members of the proctorial enquiry committee, and the officials of Delhi Police involved in search of the JNU premises and other neighbouring areas. The probe agency also recorded testimonies of 116 auto-rickshaw drivers plying in and around JNU campus and 61 of them operating around Jamia Millia University. Indian Railways said information was sought from taxi operators, cab service providers, Indian Railways, regarding the possibility of any travel, which could have been undertaken by Najeeb. It was also checked if he had left the city by air. Scrutiny of his bank accounts and information sought from the branches of the banks to identify whether any transaction had taken place in his bank account, ever since his disappearance, were also undertaken. In fact, a Yellow Notice was also issued through Interpol, in order to trace Najeeb and the same was published in all the member-countries of Interpol. Moreover, a reward of Rs 10,00,000 was also announced for the public.
CBI Files Closure Report In Najeeb Ahmed Case: 10 Years On, JNU Student's Disappearance Still A MysteryFive hundred police personnel, sniffer dogs, mounted police, photographers and videographers, 560 witness examinations, analysis of more than 200 documents, testimonies from 116 auto-rickshaw drivers and a cash reward of Rs 10 lakh – despite all of this, the disappearance of JNU student Najeeb Ahmed in October 2016 remains a mystery. A city court on Monday accepted the CBI's closure report filed in the case of Najeeb Ahmed's disappearance. While accepting the report, the court said it is of the opinion that the premier central agency investigated all plausible avenues available and the present closure report stands accepted. "The court also earnestly hopes that Najeeb Ahmed shall be traced soon. This court expresses its regret that while the proceedings in the present case end with this closure report, a closure for Najeeb's mother and other loved ones still eludes us. The CBI is at liberty to reopen the investigation on receipt of any credible information… and shall intimate the court," the court observed. Delhi Police initially handled the investigation, but it was later transferred to the CBI after Najeeb's mother filed a habeas corpus petition in the Delhi High Court expressing dissatisfaction with the probe. In October 2018, the CBI closed its investigation into the case. During the investigation it had also appeared that Najeeb had an altercation with some of his hostel mates on the intervening night of October 14 and 15, 2016. Noting that the court, while accepting the closure report, said while the allegations regarding physical assault and verbal threats against Najeeb on the night of October 14, 2016, are supported by witness testimonies, those events cannot be linked to his subsequent disappearance. 'The CBI has, through the evidence collected (the genuineness of which has not been disputed), satisfactorily explained the whereabouts of the suspects and ruled out their involvement. The mere existence of a motive or hostility, sans any corroborative material, cannot be a substitute for proof,' the court said. Najeeb was an MSc Biotechnology student at JNU and was allotted room number 106 in Mahi-Mandvi hostel of the university. Police found during its investigation that elections of the Mahi-Mandvi hostel were scheduled to take place on October 17, two days before which Najeeb went missing. WHAT HAPPENED? It surfaced that students, namely, Vikrant Kumar, Sunil Pratap Singh and Ankit Kumar Roy, contesting for the post of mess secretary and hostel committee member, were campaigning for the same, on the night of October 14, 2016. They went to visit room number 106 of the hostel, which was opened by Najeeb, and they requested him to cast his vote in their favour. As per the investigation, Najeeb got angry about this, abused, and slapped Vikrant Kumar (one of the campaigning students) twice and questioned him about the red thread (kalava) on his hand. Najeeb also pushed Sunil Pratap Singh, as he tried to intervene. At this point, Ankit Roy went to call the security guard from the ground floor of the hostel. As the situation intensified, the hostel security guard, Rajesh Kumar Jat called and requested the supervisor and hostel wardens. An emergency meeting was called in the warden's office on the same night and, as per the statements of witnesses, Najeeb orally admitted that he had slapped Vikrant without any provocation and also pleaded 'sorry'. Both Vikrant and Najeeb were asked to submit in writing about the incident and Vikrant gave a complaint, mentioning that Najeeb had slapped him, while Najeeb wrote a one line submission: 'I don't remember.' After the meeting, Najeeb complained of back pain and was taken to Safdarjung Hospital in the JNU ambulance. Najeeb's mother Fatima Nafees, who had been informed about the incident, started for Delhi from Badaun in Uttar Pradesh around 3.30 am along with her younger son, Mujeeb Ahmed. She last spoke to Najeeb around 11.30 am from Anand Vihar, but when she reached the hostel around 1.00 pm, her son was missing and his mobile phone as well as laptop were in the hostel room. According to the witnesses, Najeeb was last seen boarding an auto-rickshaw and was not carrying any luggage. He was wearing the same clothes as the night before. WHO ARE THE SUSPECTS? In this case, there were nine prime suspects – mostly Najeeb's hostel mates with whom he got into a fight. The court said it has perused the digital foot-printing report of the call records and the Central Forensic Science Laboratory reports. It has been revealed, the main accused remained there, from the morning of October 15, 2016 till lunch when the match got over. It further noted that another one of the suspects, went to the library along with Deepak on October 15 at around 10.30 am. Moreover, another suspect – Ankit Kumar Roy – had gone to attend the School of Language on the morning of Octoner in 15 and returned to the hostel only at 1.30 pm, the court noted. THE INVESTIGATION It was on the night of October 15, 2016 when the Vasant Kunj police station (North) in South Delhi, received Najeeb Ahmed's missing complaint which was converted into FIR the next day. Initially, wireless messages were sent out to all units concerned, police stations, districts, and missing person's details were uploaded on Zonal Integrated Police Net (ZIPNET). As the investigation proceeded, police examined staff, students and classmates of Najeeb. Multiple police teams conducted combing operations on the JNU campus as well as in Sanjay Van, behind JNU, twice, with private security personnel from JNU. At the JNU campus, the lands, buildings, water tanks and forest area were also thoroughly searched on December 19 and 20, 2016, in a massive search operation led by a Deputy Commissioner of Police (DCP) consisting about 560 police officials, assisted by sniffer dogs, mounted police, photographers and videographers. At least 560 witnesses, including Ahmed's family members, classmates, hostel administration among doctors treating Najeeb were examined, security guards and students at JNU, members of the proctorial enquiry committee, and the officials of Delhi Police involved in search of the JNU premises and other neighbouring areas. The probe agency also recorded testimonies of 116 auto-rickshaw drivers plying in and around JNU campus and 61 of them operating around Jamia Millia University. Indian Railways said information was sought from taxi operators, cab service providers, Indian Railways, regarding the possibility of any travel, which could have been undertaken by Najeeb. It was also checked if he had left the city by air. Scrutiny of his bank accounts and information sought from the branches of the banks to identify whether any transaction had taken place in his bank account, ever since his disappearance, were also undertaken. In fact, a Yellow Notice was also issued through Interpol, in order to trace Najeeb and the same was published in all the member-countries of Interpol. Moreover, a reward of Rs 10,00,000 was also announced for the public.
News18
an hour ago
- News18
SC Grants Interim Relief To Man Booked In POCSO Case Wrapped In Matrimonial Mayhem
In a case tangled in family feuds and courtroom battles, the Supreme Court has granted interim protection from arrest to a man booked under sections 7, 8, 9 and 10 of the POCSO Act. The accused, described as a friend of the complainant's mother, had knocked on the doors of the Supreme Court after the Kerala High Court dismissed his anticipatory bail plea, allegedly without giving due weight to crucial facts. The complainant's mother is a co-accused for allegedly forcing her child to have sexual relations with the accused. The woman, however, has secured anticipatory bail in the case. The case was registered in April, but is based on alleged incidents from 2021. The four-year delay in lodging the complaint has raised a number of questions. In their plea, the petitioner has contended that the complaint is nothing but a move in an ongoing matrimonial battle between the complainant's parents. The petitioner claimed that this move was orchestrated by the complainant's father as revenge on the accused for siding with the mother in a custody dispute pending before the family court. The high court, while dealing with a prior habeas corpus plea by the complainant's father, had brushed aside similar claims, attributing them to the fallout of 'severe matrimonial strife".
