"Bestial & Brutal Act; Victim Must Have Died Everyday": UP Court Awards Death Sentence To Man Who Repeatedly Raped 14-Yr-Old Daughter

Importantly, the Additional Sessions Judge, Nitin Pandey (presiding over Rape and POCSO Court, Bahraich) completed the trial in the case in 7 days and awarded him Death Penalty after noting that the case would fall under the category of Rarest of Rare case, the act being bestial & barbaric.

"A daughter was raped by her own father continuously; his daughter must have died every day… Those who have neither knowledge nor penance, nor liberty, nor knowledge, nor good conduct, nor virtue, nor the observance of duties, pass their life in this world of mortals like beasts in human form and are only a burden on the planet," the court noted which finding death penalty to be the suitable sentence to be awarded to him.

Case background

The mother of the victim (wife of the convict) got registered an FIR by alleging that her own husband had been raping her minor daughter (then 15). She alleged that her husband (father of the victim) had been forcibly raping the minor daughter continuously for the last two years.

Police registered a case against the Convict on August 25, 2021, and started the probe immediately, and completed the probe in 11 days.

On the complaint of the mother, a case was registered against the Nanhu Khan (father of the Victim) under Section 376 (3), 323, 506 of IPC and Section 5 and 6 of the POCSO Act.

The Cognizance of the matter was taken by the Court on September 7, 2021, and the charges were framed by the Court on September 27, 2021.

In his deposition, the convict's son (brother of the Victim) had stated that he himself witnessed his father raping his sister 3 or 4 times.

Further, it also came to record that the father had clicked her nude picture and had even blackmailed her and when the girl informed her mother about the crime, both were beaten up by the convict.

Court's observations

At the outset, the Court noted that the Convict committed rape on his own daughter, with whom he had a fiduciary relationship and the daughter was a minor and she could not fight or resist the acts of her father.

The Court also remarked that the acts of the father of the victim must have undeniably shaken Victim's mental consciousness and that the constant act of raping his daughter, spoke volumes of his cruelty.

"This minor girl continued to suffer the acts of her father and whenever she thought of talking about it to her mother, she was either threatened or beaten up. Undoubtedly, the situation must have become such for this minor girl that she should kill herself…She couldn't have comprehended as to how a father could be like this and why her father was committing offence on her, despite his mother being there," the Court remarked as it noted that only to fulfil his lust, the convict had raped his own natural minor daughter thereby putting humanity to shame.

The Court also noted that the convict had married off his daughter, however, he didn't send his daughter to the home of her in-laws and added that it would be impossible for a married daughter to have a relationship with her husband again when her husband finds out that his wife's father has been raping her continuously.

Further, noting that even after raping his daughter for the first time, there was no feeling of guilt and this act was done by him continuously, the Court remarked thus:

"A daughter looks at her father when she is in pain and sorrow. She puts her father above her husband. A daughter has utmost faith in her father, but in the present case, breaking all human norms by conviction, such a crime was committed against the daughter, which killed daughter's faith in father."

In its judgment, the Court also observed that generally, such acts do not come out in the society, and even if the victim shows some courage and brings out such act and tells it to any of her personal relatives, then her personal relative would not believe her or will hesitate or be quiet.

"(Victim) was so courageous in the case that he had told this to her mother at the very beginning, but the circumstances were such, that even her mother could not bring this act in front of the society, until she saw her husband doing the acts with her daughter."

Further, stressing that when a father become so harmful for his own daughter, then it could be imagined as to how much harmful he would be for the society, the Court significantly remarked thus:

"It is unquestionably established that judges should not be thirsty for blood, but when a crime is not a crime but a sin, it is also expected from the judges that he should punish the guilty in such a way that creates a sense of satisfaction in the society. Forgiveness is the ornament of the brave, but since such a sin has been committed by the convict, it does not make him eligible for forgiveness, so in this case, to forgive him would be cowardice."

Mitigating v Aggravating Circumstances

In accordance with the principle established in the case of Mukesh & Anr vs State For Nct Of Delhi & Ors (Nirbhaya Case), the Court, in the instant case, did a comparative analysis of the Mitigating and Aggravating circumstances.

In the present case, the Court observed, there are no such mitigating circumstances that can bring the conduct of the Convict out of the purview of the rarest of the rare case category.

"The crime committed by the convict continuously and the effect it has had on the victim and the society, brings the crime committed by the conviction in the purview of rarest of rare," the Court noted.

Against his backdrop, the Court opined further,

"It would also be frightening to think that if this happens in the family itself, then whether the society and the country would be safe and whether in such a situation any society or civilized country could be imagined."

With this, the Court found him guilty for all the offences charged and awarded him the death penalty by observing thus":

"Convict Nanhu Khan be hanged by the neck till he is dead"

The Court imposed a fine of Rs. 50,000/- on the accused, however, the Court, in its Judgment stressed that since the fine is adequate, and the same won't be sufficient to fulfill lifelong financial needs of the victim child and her mother, therefore, the court further directed the District Legal Services Authority to take appropriate action to get the victim suitable compensation from the State Government.

Case title – State v. Nanhu Khan

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment