Nagpur: The Nagpur Bench of Bombay High Court recently overturned an Amravati POCSO court’s conviction of a 43-year-old man accused of sexually assaulting his minor daughter for seven years citing lack of evidence.
“It’s true that in ordinary circumstances, a daughter would not level such an allegation against her father. Similarly, a father would also not sexually assault his daughter. However, considering human psychology and tendency, mistakes can occur, even in the case of the father, who is ordinarily considered as protector of the children,” Justice Govinda Sanap stated.
The case stemmed from allegations that the father, an alcoholic, had sexually abused his daughter from Class- 3 until she was 14 years old. The survivor had initially reported the incident to her maternal grandmother after her mother abandoned the family.
Crucial to the court’s decision were key factors: The seven-year delay in reporting, the father’s role as the sole guardian for his children and elderly mother, and the complete absence of corroborative evidence beyond the survivor’s testimony.
The bench was hearing an appeal by the father challenging his conviction, dated February 23, 2021, in the sexual assault case by a special court. He was sentenced to 10 years of imprisonment along with a Rs. 5000 fine by the special court under the provisions of the Indian Penal Code and the Prevention of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO). The father looked after the alleged victim and her brother
The Judge noted that the complaint was filed 7 years after his wife left the appellant. He further observed that the appellant had not remarried ever since his wife left him and had been taking care of his two children, including the victim. The judge also took notice of the fact that the victim confided in her maternal grandmother about the alleged sexual assault and not in her paternal grandmother with whom she had been residing for years.
“It is not a case of the victim that she was not close to her paternal grandmother. The victim girl did not disclose any incident to her paternal grandmother and her younger brother. The appellant looked after the well-being of the victim and her younger brother. He did not perform the marriage even after desertion by the first wife. As compared to a paternal grandmother who was residing with the victim, the maternal grandmother was more trusted by the victim girl,” the judge noted.
The victim had testified that her mother had left her, and her father, an alcoholic, started abusing her when she was in Class 3 and that she disclosed this to her maternal grandmother and not to her paternal grandmother with whom she had been residing.
No evidence except the ‘bare words’ of the victim
Citing a lack of evidence, except for the victim’s testimony, Justice Sanap noted that the appellant has been shouldering his family’s responsibility from age 25. “Even if it is assumed that the father was addicted to liquor, it would not weigh in favour of the prosecution. The victim has nowhere stated that the appellant did not look after their well-being and maintain them. He looked after the victim in the absence of her mother, and would not have committed such an act with her. When the wife of the appellant left him, he was hardly 25 years of age. On the date of lodging the report, he was 35 years of age. He single-handedly looked after the well-being of the children and his old-aged mother. He was the only earning member of the family and must have toiled hard to earn and sustain the family. This is another vital circumstance, ” the judge noted
Examining the evidence on record, Justice Sanap observed that the victim implicated her father in a false case because he was opposing her marriage with the boy of her own choice with whom she had intimacy.
“The appellant, being a caring father, did not accept the proposal of marriage of the boy with his daughter. In my view, it seems to be the cause for the prosecution against the appellant. It shows that the victim and the boy had intimacy. In my view, the strong opposition to the marriage by the appellant seems to be the cause of his misery. It seems that his approach was proper. He was not wrong when he suggested that the boy was not the proper match for the victim. The appellant being guardian of the victim, was the proper person to find a suitable match for his daughter. The victim-daughter had ideas and plans in her mind, “the judge said while acquitting the appellant.