Mama Expected To Protect Like Double 'Ma': Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Conviction For Sexually Assaulting 6-Yr-Old Nephew

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has upheld the conviction of a man for committing aggravated penetrative sexual assault on his own 6-year old nephew in 2017. It also upheld sentence of cumulative 10 years imprisonment under Section 6 of POCSO Act and Section 377 of IPC.

While noting that the offence was committed in 2017, prior to enhancement of punishment under POCSO Act, Justice Deepak Gupta said, "Having regard to the increasing number of crimes of this nature and also having regard to the close relationship between victim and the accused, the sentence of 10 years rigorous imprisonment imposed by the ld. trial Court, cannot be considered to be excessive in any manner whatsoever. Being mama (maternal uncle) of the victim child, the accused was required to protect him like double ‘ma’ being a mama (maternal uncle). Instead of doing so, the accused proved to be demon for him. No leniency is called for such a person."

These observations were made while hearing the appeal of a man who was maternal uncle of the victim, convicted under Section 377 and Section 6 of POCSO Act and for committing aggravated penetrative sexual assault. The prosecution had established the case by examining 8 witnesses and hence the trial Court had sentenced him to 10 years imprisonment.

The conviction was challenged by arguing that the convict has been falsely implicated due to money dispute and personal enmity between him and victim's father. 

The counsel appearing for the convict also submitted that the victim child had not deposited before the trial Court because the Court found that he could not understand the questions or to give reasonable replies.

Justice Gupta opined that,"in such circumstances, only because of the non-recording of the statement of the victim as a witness, the prosecution case cannot be disbelieved, though the statement of other witnesses will have to be examined with caution."

The Court further noted that the testimony of the parents of the victim is "quite consistent", "when PW1 (father of victim) reached at the place of his in-laws and after waiting for about half an hour for his son, he went outside the house in search of him, he found the victim child coming weeping bitterly and disclosed to him that the accused had removed his trousers and had committed carnal intercourse against the course of nature. It has also been consistently testified by both of them that the hand and trouser of the child were drenched in blood and that trouser was even handed over to the police."

Simply because of the fact that it is not mentioned in the FIR that hand and trouser of the victim were drenched in blood, it cannot be a reason to disbelieve the statement of the parents of the victim, the bench said.

Adding that FIR is not an encyclopedia so as to contain all the minute details of the occurrence, the Court said, "one can very well imagine the condition of a father, who finds that his young child has been subjected to carnal intercourse by none-else than his own mama (maternal uncle). His immediate response will be to report the matter to the police and get his son medically examined In such circumstances, if details like the trouser or hand being drenched in blood is not mentioned in the FIR, this cannot be a reason to disbelieve him."

The Court also ruled our the possibility of false implication due to strained relationship between the accused and victim's father, "It is quite common in our country that the married daughter with her children comes to stay with her parental family. Had there been strained relations due to the alleged money transaction or any other reason, between the complainant and the accused/father of the accused, PW2 (mother of victim) would not have come along with her children to stay with her parental family."

The bench also opined that "it is absolutely not believable" that the patents will put the honour of their young child just below of six years of age at stake because of personal animosity. As such, defence projected by the accused has been rightly rejected by the trial court

In the light of the above, the Court rejected the appeal and conviction was upheld.

Appearance: Madhur Singh, Advocate, for the appellant.

P.S. Pandher, AAG, Punjab.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (PH) 203

Title: X v. State of Punjab