Enact Law With Severe Punishment For Child Sexual Abuse By Family Members: Madras HC Upholds Man's Conviction For Raping Stepdaughter

The bench of Justice GR Swaminathan and Justice R Poornima in its order said, “We are of the opinion that it is for the State to take serious efforts to curtail the offence by enacting the law and impose severe punishments to those involved in sexual offence are family members or close friends.The state should take immediate steps to protect the children from the sexual offence by providing awareness programme in all television channels, theatre, schools. The Child Welfare Committee should visit hostels, schools etc, to see that any child affected with sexual harassment and take necessary action. The State should provide funds to open protection home for the children aged between 1 to 17 in order to protect them from sexual offence”.

The court made the observation while dismissing a man's appeal who was convicted and sentenced for sexually abused his step daughter and impregnated her. The court took note of the “shocking” news reports that as per the National crime Records Bureau, in 96% of the cases, the sexual abusers were known to the children. The court added that in most of these cases, the offenders took advantage of their dominating position and sexually abused the children under threat or coercion

“When the child met with such harassment travel with a deep wound till her lifetime. Many of cases are left unreported due to the family prestige and future life of the child. Therefore, many accused escape without punishment,” the court observed.

Highlighting the physical and the mental trauma that a sexual assault victim undergoes, the court added that many times, the incidents were not reported due to the stigma attached to a girl who has been sexually assaulted.

“In our society till date, the girl who undergoes sexual assault is not treated equally with others but treated by society as if she committed a sin. That is the reason for many of them not revealing the same to anyone,” the court said.

The case against the appellant was that he had sexually assaulted his step daughter. The complaint was filed by the victim's mother and the appellant's wife. The biological father of victim girl had died when she was 4 months old after which her mother married the appellant while the victim was being looked after by her grandparents. Later, the appellant compelled the mother to bring the victim to their house. Later, when the victim started having stomach ache, she was taken to the hospital where it was found that she was 6 months pregnant. After she was brought home, she confided in her mother that the stepfather had sexually abused her and threatened her not to disclose it to any other person.

Though the appellant challenged the order of conviction on the grounds of delay in lodging complaint, discrepancies in the statements and failure to conduct DNA examination, the court was not satisfied with the grounds. The court noted that delay in filing of FIR could not automatically lead to dismissal of prosecution case. The court also observed that minor contradictions in evidence normally would not affect the case as the court could not expect the victim girl to speak stereotype evidence at each stage. The court also observed that failure to conduct a DNA test was not fatal to the prosecution case.

The court empathised with the child, calling it a pathetic story of a child who had lost her father at an early age. The court also found it disturbing to note that the appellant (accused) had been mentioned as father of the victim in all her documents. The court noted that while the mother had married the appellant with the hope that he would look after the minor daughter, the appellant had shattered all her faith.

Thus, finding no material to interfere with the conviction and sentence, the court dismissed the appeal.

Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr.S.Siva Subramanian

Counsel for the Respondent: Mr.E.Antony Sahaya Prabahar Additional Public Prosecutor

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 462

Case Title: R. v The State

Case No: Crl. A (MD)No.26 of 2022