Millennium Post

HC upholds jail term of man for sexually abusing daughter

HC upholds jail term of man for sexually abusing daughter
The Delhi high court has maintained the five-year sentence of a man for sexually abusing and intimidating his 15-year-old daughter for three years in Burari in West Delhi in 2013.

The lower court had convicted and sentenced accused Vinod Kumar under various provisions of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act on the basis of evidence by the victim and her mother.

The accused in his defense had alleged implication in the case by the victim at the instance of her <g data-gr-id="30">mother</g> but he could not produce any evidence in support of it, the High Court noted.

The victim in her complaint to the police and the statement recorded by the Metropolitan Magistrate had given a detailed account of how her modesty was outraged by her father on different occasions.
When her mother objected to the obnoxious activities by the victim’s father on being shared by her daughter, the accused beat her.

The victim testified that her father used to stare at her at the time of changing clothes and taking <g data-gr-id="29">bath</g> and used to touch her inappropriately.

“Material facts deposed by the prosecutrix in her <g data-gr-id="28">examination-in-chef</g> (evidence) remain unchallenged. Despite lengthy cross-examination, no infirmities could be elicited. No extraneous motive was witnessed assigned to the child to falsely implicate her own father; the bread-earner of the family. No sound reasons exist to disbelieve the prosecutrix. She is consistent throughout,” the High Court observed on her evidence. 

“Their (victim and her mother) statements are not at variance. Nothing was suggested to her in the cross-examination if she nurtured any ill-will against her husband on any issue,’’ the court further said.

“The impugned (challenged) order based upon <g data-gr-id="35">fair</g> and proper appreciation of the evidence, needs no intervention. The conviction is upheld. The appellant does not deserve leniency as being <g data-gr-id="32">father</g>, he even did not spare his minor daughter. The appeal lacks merits and is dismissed,” the High Court said.
Next Story
Share it