"Father is fortress, trustee of his daughter:" POCSO court convicts father who sexually assaulted his daughter

A special POCSO court in Mumbai recently sentenced a man to five years rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of ₹25,000 after it found him guilty of sexually assaulting his daughter, who was five years old at the time of the incident [The State of Maharashtra vs Paul Micheal Vaz]. .Special Judge HC Shende observed that the allegations by the minor survivor that her father used to touch her inappropriately was proved beyond doubt."As we know, the accused is father against whom the allegations made by the victim daughter that 'he touches her vagina (over her clothes)'. It is proved beyond doubt against the accused. A father is fortress, trustree of his daughter. This crime, therefore, becomes more grievous," the Court said. .According to the prosecution, the survivor's school teacher observed some odd behaviour on her part wherein she would rub herself against the corner of benches, which prompted her to speak to the child's mother. Consequently, the child revealed to her mother and then her babysitter that she had been touched inappropriately by her father several times.The accused asserted that the case was fraudulent and a retaliatory measure. He claimed that his wife had become acquainted with two males and would talk to them late in the night. His argument with her regarding the friendships, he claimed, prompted her to file the bogus complaint against him..According to Special Assistant Public Prosecutor Geeta Malankar, the juvenile survivor mentioned in her testimony that she had been sexually touched by the accused and that he had threatened her with repercussions if she told anybody about the incident(s).She submitted that the evidence of the child's mother as regards changes in her behaviour was corroborated by the child's school teacher. Since the teacher was an independent witness, Malankar argued that she had no reason to testify falsely.She, therefore, contended that the sole testimony of the child was reliable and sufficient to hold the accused guilty of committing the crime. Her evidence needs to be relied upon, she stated.Further, she submitted that no prudent woman would lodge a false complaint of sexual assault about her own daughter given the consequences they would eventually face in society. Malankar, therefore, vehemently submitted that the sole evidence of the victim and of other witnesses was self-sufficient..Advocate PB Patil, for the accused, theorised that the child must have been shocked when questioned about her behaviour and under pressure fabricated the answer to satisfy her mother.In this background, he stated, her mother probably forced her to answer the questions and, therefore, she must have deposed that her father touched her inappropriately.The fact that the child's mother did not notify her husband about the phone contact from the school teacher as well as the delay in filing the FIR indicated that the case was a hoax, Patil contended. He also pointed out that she had admitted to having struck friendships with two males as alleged by her husband.He also drew the Court's attention to the fact that the child was in the custody of her mother since arrest of the accused and hence there was every possibility that she was tutored by her mother and, therefore, her testimony cannot be relied upon..The Court, after hearing both the parties was convinced beyond doubt that the crime had been committed by the accused and refused to entertain his prayer for leniency."The accused is father of the victim aged five years hardly at the relevant time. The advocate for the accused submitted to show leniency for the accused as he is a reputed person, working person and the victim is his own daughter. In my view, these reasons are neither special nor adequate," it explained.The Court, therefore, convicted him of the offences of outraging the modesty of a woman under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and aggravated sexual assault under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act respectively.He was sentenced to five years rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of ₹25,000 out of which ₹20,000 was directed to be paid to the survivor child as compensation..[Read Judgment]