The Punjab and Haryana High Court recently commuted the death penalty of a man to 30-years imprisonment for sexual abuse of his 17-year-old daughter..The Division Bench of Justice Gurvinder Singh Gill and Justice Jasjit Singh Bedi found sufficient evidence to uphold his conviction. However, it opined that the case cannot be termed ‘rarest of rape’ to justify death sentence. “It goes without saying that the accused having subjected his minor daughter to repeated penetrative sexual assault and having impregnated her has committed one of the most heinous crimes of the gravest form and would hardly call for any kind of leniency in the matter of sentence. However, at the same time we find that the case is not such to be termed as “rarest of rare cases” so as to justify the death sentence,” the Court ruled..In 2020, the victim along with her grandparents had approached the police stating that after her mother died, her father had started raping her. The abuse continued for years and as a result, she got pregnant, the police complaint said.The accused was arrested on October 3 in 2020 and allegedly confessed to his guilt. The victim later delivered a baby. In 2023, the trial court in Haryana's Palwal found the accused guilty and sentenced him to death..The matter then reached the High Court for confirmation of the death sentence. The convict also filed an appeal, arguing that he had been falsely implicated since he had snatched the victim’s phone which had been given to her by a boy with whom she was in love. He also claimed that the baby born to the victim was fathered by the boy. The DNA profile in any case would have matched with the child since he was the baby’s grandfather, it was contended..In the judgment dated July 11, the High Court said that sufficient medical evidence had been led by prosecution regarding the pregnancy of the minor victim. It further found the victim had specifically mentioned that her father had sexually abused her for about four years. “When the victim stepped into the witness box during the course of trial as PW-10, she again reiterated the version while categorically stating that she had repeatedly been subjected to forcible penetrative intercourse by the accused for about 4 years and had been impregnated,” the Court said..It rejected the defence argument that the child born to the victim was fathered by the boy with whom the victim was in love.“The fact that the victim herself admitted her relationship with the scrap dealer xxx as has also been admitted by the grand-father of the victim cannot be interpreted to mean that in fact the father of the child delivered by the victim was xxx and not the accused. The fact that the victim herself admitted that she knew xxx would rather show that she is a truthful witness and has not tried to conceal any fact. The crisp and specific allegations having been levelled by the victim regarding having been subjected to penetrative sexual assault by the accused which is also borne out from the medical evidence inasmuch as the victim was found to be pregnant would attract provisions of Section 29 of POCSO Act and a presumption against the accused could even safely be drawn,” the Court said..Further, the Court also found that it was a “case of perfect match” of DNA samples.“While it could be said that the DNA profile of the accused would to some extent match with that of the baby being in any case her grand-father, but the instant case is not a case where only a small percentage was found to be matching but it is a case of perfect match as has been stated by PW-24 Dr. Anshuman Rai, Senior Scientific Assistant (B) DNA Division, Forensic Science Laboratory, Madhuban,” the Court said.Pertinently, the semen of the accused had been found on the salwar of the victim.“Still further the final nail in the coffin would be that the semen stain found on the salwar of the victim were found to be matching with DNA profile obtained from the blood sample of the accused,” the Court added..Thus, the Court upheld the sentence of the accused under Section 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act and Section 506(II) of Indian Penal Code (IPC). However, it reduced the sentence as follows:“The appellant-accused is however, sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 30 years with a stipulation that he shall not be entitled to pre-mature release or remission before undergoing the actual imprisonment for a period of 30 years.”.Additional Advocate General Ranvir Singh Arya represented the State of Haryana.Legal Aid Counsel Sumit Sharma with Advocate Ashwani Bhardwaj represented the convict. Amicus Curiae Arshdeep Singh Brar appeared for the victim.
