Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Shiv Lal vs State on 12 September, 2016
Author: Gopal Krishan Vyas
Bench: Gopal Krishan Vyas
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
AT JODHPUR
JUDGMENT
D.B. CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.986 of 2007
Appellant :
Shiv Lal S/o.Uka Ji, by caste Prajapat, resident of Javal,
P.S. Barlut, District Sirohi (Raj.)
Vs.
Respondent :
The State of Rajasthan.
Date of Judgment : 12.09.2016
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.R. MOOLCHANDANI
Mr. Shamboo Singh ]
Mr. Vikram Singh ] for the appellant.
Mr. C.S. Ojha, PP for State.
BY THE COURT: (Per Hon'ble Moolchandani, J.)
The instant appeal is directed against the judgment dated 01/11/2007 passed by Sessions Judge, Sirohi (Raj.) in Sessions Case No.05/2007, convicting and sentencing appellant-accused Shiv Lal under Section 376(1) of IPC as under-
Under Section 376(1) IPC life imprisonment and a fine of Rs.25,000/- and in default further to undergo for one year's simple imprisonment.
2. The story of the prosecution as dwelt in the FIR reads as under :-
2
"Jheku iqfyl v/kh{kd egksn;k fljksgh fo"k;%& esjh iq=h lqUnj ds lkFk esjs ifr f'koyky }kjk [kksVk dke ¼cykRdkj½ djus ls esjh iq=h dk cpko ckcr vtZ ,d yyhrk W/o f'koyky tkfr iztkir fuoklh tkoky iqfyl Fkkuk cjyqV gky esjs ih;j xqMk Fkkuk dkyUnzh ls N% ekg ls vdsyh esjs HkkbZ o ekrk ds lkFk jgrh gwWa eSus igys Hkh vkids le{k is"k gksdj esjs ifr ij eq>s lrkus dk eqdnek ntZ fd;k Fkk rFkk pkyku gqvk FkkA vc pkj ikap fnu igys esjh iq=h dks tkoky Qksu fd;k fd eeh fnokyh ds ckn ls esjs lkFk firk f"koyky us N% ckj [kksVk dke fd;k ykLV cykRdkj cq/kokj dks fd;k eeh eSa Mjh gqbZ gwWa esjh tku dks [krjk gks x;k eq>dks bl [kjkc yQMs ls NqMkvks esa iqfyl dks vdsys esa crkus dks lc rS;kj gwWa d`i;k vkids ikl vtZ djus vkus dk eSu dkj.k ;gh gS fd f"koyky dks Hkud ugha yxs Fkkus esa tkrh rks Hkh esjh dk;Zokgh gksrh ijUrq LVki o Fkkuk nks fdyksehVj ij gh gS lks f"koyky esjh cPph dks Qjkj gksdj lcwr u'V djus gsrq tku ls ekj nsxk dk;Zokgh djkos ,lMh"
and this FIR has been registered on 13/01/2007 at 11.45 a.m. under Section 376 of IPC, culmination of the investigation has resulted in a charge-sheet against the appellant-accused. After due trial, the learned trial court has convicted appellant-accused and sentenced him for life imprisonment with a fine of Rs.25,000/- and further to undergo one year simple imprisonment in event of default.
3. Heard the arguments advanced, learned counsel for the appellant-accused has vehemently contended that the learned trial court has committed error in passing the impugned judgment because the evidence has not been properly appreciated. Accused-appellant 3 and his wife were not having good relations and the complainant wife was living in her parental house after abandoning the house of the appellant, relations between accused and his complainant wife were bitter and all four kids were residing with her husband-father Shivlal and the complainant was adamant to procure the custody of the kids in any manner and acting upon that machination, false FIR was lodged after instigating minor daughter. Appellant-accused was undergoing treatment after major surgery of his spinal cord and was not in a position to cohabit, so allegations of alleged rape are concocted and false. There are vital contradictions in the evidence of the prosecution and prosecution has not been able to prove its case. Relying upon the judgment of Madhya Pradesh High Court in case of Phool Chand vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2014, Cri.L.J.4789, Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Mohd. Imran Khan vs. State, 2011 Cr.L.r. (SC) 901, State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Keshar Singh, 2015(4) RLW 2869 (SC), Krishan Kumar Malik vs. State of Haryana, (2011) 7 SCC 130, K.Venkateshwarlu vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, (2012) 8 SCC 73 and Rahim Beg & Anr. vs. State of U.P., (1972) 3 SCC 759, learned counsel has contended that false FIR was lodged, in order to create pressure to 4 procure the kids and it has got no substance of truth so, the accused-appellant is liable to be acquitted, in the end, learned counsel has contended in alternate that learned trial Court has passed sentence of life imprisonment, which is not at all just because the appellant is a sick person and he is to look after his family and there is no reason to keep the appellant behind the bars for whole of his life. Relying upon the following judgment of Rajasthan High Court in case of Yogendra Singh @ Bablu & Anr. vs. State of Rajasthan, 2015(2) Cr.L.R. (Raj.)649 and in case of Sunil @ Dinkli vs. State of Rajasthan, 2015(3) Cr.L.R. (Raj) 1531, the sentence for life imprisonment may be modified and converted to already undergone period or to lesser years other than to life imprisonment.
Learned public prosecutor has argued that there is no such flaw in the impugned judgment. The appellant- accused has raped his own minor daughter for several times and victim has herself narrated all these facts and crime endured and perperated upon her, in testimony, there is no contradiction whatsoever in the evidence produced by the prosecution and the factum of rape has also been established by medical evidence, so, there is no reason of any feebleness and prosecution has succeeded to prove and establish its 5 case and trial Court has rightly convicted the accused, so far as quantum of sentence is concerned, it is also not worthy to be reduced because a minor daughter of 13 years has repeatedly been raped by his own father, which is very grave and serious offence and such accused should not be given any kind of leniency and appeal is liable to be dismissed because, it has got no merit.
4. Heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the entire record of the trial Court.
5. Perusal of FIR Ex.P.1 suggests that complainant Lalita has lodged the FIR against her own husband Shivlal with an allegation that her minor daughter was raped by her husband.
Prosecution has proved Ex.P.1 and complainant Smt. Lalita has been examined as PW.1, who is none- else but real spouse of accused Shivlal. She has narrated that Shivlal is her spouse and her marriage was solemnized sixteen years back and she has got three daughters and she has further said that her son is aging ten years. There were no good relations between them after marriage.
She has said that in the day her husband used to go on work and he was having illicit relations with other women and her husband used to beat her, hitherto she 6 was staying with her, parental home at Guda for six to seven months. She has also said that her husband was having relations with other women and she forbade not to maintain such relations and her case regarding beating by her husband was lodged with Kaalendri Police and its case is subjudice in the Sirohi Court. She has further said that her three daughters and a son were living with her husband Shivlal. She has also said that she was inclined to speak with her kids on telephone, so made phones, but failed to speak with her kids because kids were scared of her husband and to speak with her kids she had made a phone to Rataram Prajapat, a neighbour at Javal about one and half months back and has said that then her daughter prosecutrix (to keep the identity un-disclosed the name of the victim is merely being referred as 'prosecutrix' ) disclosed the event because prosecutrix had apprised him on phone that Shivlal had raped her and prosecutrix had also informed that prior to the telephonic talk, Shivlal had raped her for five to six times. At the time of telephonic talk, her daughter was scared and was under fear, since Shivlal had told her not to convey this to anybody, otherwise he would kill her. She has also said that she had presented Ex.P.1 FIR before Police Superintendent, Sirohi, which bears her signature, in the cross- 7 examination, she has said that she has got four children, oldest prosecutrix and youngest is her son Pankaj. This witness has elaborately been cross examined in about six pages, but nothing abnormal or causing frailty to the prosecution has emerged, it has been said by this witness in her cross examination that her husband did not allow the kids even to speak and she has got his mother alive and his father since died.
6. PW.5 prosecutrix a minor girl of 13 years has said that she taught upto seventh in Government Girls Higher Secondary School, Javal and renunciated the studies seven months back and has further said that when her mother left for Guda, her father stopped her from pursuing the studies. She has also said that one should speak truth and to tell a lie is unpious. She has also said that she will speak but truth and has said not to have been tuitored by anybody, she has said that she is eldest amongst three sisters and one brother, her mother resides at Guda these days. She has also said that her father had beaten her mother about seven to eight months back, since then her mother was residing at Guda. She has again said that when her mother was at Javal, she used to go and attend the school and was studying in VII standard, but 8 after leaving of her mother for Guda, she was got dropped from studies by her father, while narrating shocking and unpleasant ravaging story, she has said that six to seven days prior to Deepawali, her father Shivlal returned at about ten in a drunken stage and slept after taking dinner, afterwards her father demanded water from her, she went to serve water but her father caught her and after tying handkerchief on her eyes, she was got laid on the bed and after removal of her cloths, her father slept over her and inserted his organ i.e. object of urination into place of her urination, she has again said that such kind of wrong act was committed six times after interval of few days, her mother was residing at Guda and has further said that two months back, her mother had made a phone call from Ahmedabad, then she narrated entire incident of rape to her mother, she has also said that she had also informed act of his father to her front-side living neighbour Prakash and to one Shanta, as well. She has also said that her mother had made phone call on the telephone of neighbour Rataram Prajapat. She has also narrated consigning of her underwear to police vide Ex.P.5, which was spotting white-like spots. She has also said that policemen kept 9 that underwear in the bag and her statements were also recorded in the Shivganj Court.
This witness has been cross examined at length in several pages, but nothing concrete causing adversity to the examination-in-chief has emerged. She has also said that it is wrong to say that her father's operation of spinal cord (Kamar ka Manka) was done in July, 2006, but he was operated about one year back from today (this examination of the witness has been recorded on 17/3/2007) and has clarified that her father was hospitalized for ten days and remained on bed for three to four months after operation and after that he did not work hard for four months and used to perform light work. She has also said that when her father committed rape upon her six to seven days ahead of Deepawali, then she was wearing Salvarsuit.
She has also explained that her father used to commit rape sometime after one month, sometime after six to seven days and seldom after fifteen days and always tied handkerchief on her face and she has further narrated that handkerchief was nothing but it was bathing towel. She has also said that she tried to push her father, but he used to clutch her hands. She has also said that after telephonic information to her mother, 10 her mother and Mama came from Sirohi next day. She has also said that when her father ousted her mother, she accompanied her mother, but was forcibly deboarded and brought back by her father.
7. PW.7 Dr.Rajendra Kumar Arora, who examined the victim girl, while admitting Ex.P.6 to Ex.P.10 X-rays, has said that on the basis of x-ray examination, he had determined the age of prosecutrix between 14 to 16 years and in cross examination, he has also said that it is true that on Ex.P.6, it is mentioned that the examination relates to sexual offence by the Medical Board and this Ex.P.6 has been opined by a conclusion that after examination, the member of the medical board are of the opinion that (1) Patient prosecutrix is habitual of sexual intercourse. Opinion about recent intercourse to be given after report of vaginal swab (2) age of patient is between 14-16 years and doctor has also said that Dr. Veena Rani had made gynaecological examination of prosecutrix, on the basis of which the board had opined and under column of opinion it is mentioned that prosecutrix was used to and was habitual to intercourse.
PW.16 Dr. Veena Rani, who has examined the victim girl with respect to the outrageous attack and 11 has prepared Ex.P.6 has said that she had examined prosecutrix on 13/1/2007, her hymen was absent, she was under menstruation and solo finger was easily inserting whereas dual fingers were able to be inserted with slight difficulty. She has also said that she had examined prosecutrix gynaechologically and physically, in cross examination she has again said that she had examined prosecutrix only gynaechologically. She has further said that on 13/1/2007, she had taken consent of the patient, which is mentioned on Ex.P.6. She has also said that hymen of prosecutrix was non-present from old time, she has also said that whatever opinion has been expressed by the board it was estimated on their examination.
PW.6 Suresh Chand Mathur a Member of the Medical Board has also said that Ex.P.6 bears his signature and he was a member of the Board and had opined regarding the age of patient, but if we peruse Ex.P.6, then the opinion regarding the patient being habitual to sexual intercourse has been endorsed by all the three doctors of the medical board in which doctor S.C. Mathur is also a signatory.
PW.12 Dr.K.K. Aseri has also admitted to be a member conducting examination of victim girl 12 prosecutrix and has admitted his signature on Ex.P.6 and on Ex.P.10 and Ex.P.16 as well. He has also said that after examining prosecutrix thoroughly, the report was prepared unanimously. This witness has also said that it is difficult to opine regarding recent intercourse, it is dependent on the finding of FSL.
PW.4 Dr. Darshan Kumar Grovar has examined the accused regarding his potency and he has corroborated Ex.P.3 the potency examination by saying that on the basis of his examination, "nothing found suggestive to opine that the patient was not capable to cohabit and he has found the patient competent for intercourse, Ex.P.3 potency certificate has also got a mentioning that reflexes were present and were found on the genital at the time of the examination.
8. Ex.P.6 Medical Examination Report has also got findings on gynaechological exam and it is mentioned therein that hymen was absent, menstruation, bleeding, inserts one finger easily and two fingers with slight difficulty and other side (overleaf) of the report has got opinion, which has been discussed and dealt earlier. Thus Ex.P.6, medical report, which is a documentary evidence has got importance and all the medical experts have corroborated its preparation and accepted being signatory to it and it has got a 13 categorical opinion of the board that "the patient was habitual of sexual intercourse and her hymen was absent from old time".
9. PW.4 prosecutrix has specifically said that she was accustomed to take bath daily and use to wash her underwear daily, so absence of semen marks on the underwear or the swabs have got trite relevance because there is a credible direct evidence of victim girl, real daughter of appellant-accused Shivlal that she was repeatedly raped by her father on several occasions commencing six to seven days ahead of Deepawali at different intervals. She has medically been found habitual of sex.
Ex.P.6 is signed by medical board, which bears signatures of all the doctors and the observation regarding opinion as mentioned on Ex.P.6 can never be over looked, so totality of the aforesaid testimony reveals that minor-victim, prosecutrix was repeatedly ravaged by her own father Shivlal at interval of different days as many as for six to seven times and her outrageous position has been found to be medically supported and well corroborated. An innocent teenager daughter would never speak such an enormous indictment without truth or substance against her own sire; she has even said that she tried to push and 14 forced away her father but accused after cladding towel over her eyes forcefully raped her, she is so innocent that she has uttered that her father stripped her and inserted his object of urination into the orifice of her urination and such incest is nothing less than to a barbarious copulation prevalent amongst mindless animals, so adays category of such accused is covered separately and has been prescribed with stringent punishment under distinct sub clause under Section 376(f) of I.P.C. by the Act 13 of 2013 (w.e.f. 3.2.2013).
Entire cross examination of this tender girl does not disclose any kind of contradiction or frailty and evaluation of complete piece of her evidence, appears to be creditworthy and reliable.
10. PW.2 Devendra maternal uncle of victim has narrated that his sister Lalita was married with Shivlal, who used to beat her and Shivlal was not enjoying a good character, so his sister Lalita was living with them in Ahmedabad, but her children were staying with Shivlal and they were three daughters and one son, eldest daughter was prosecutrix. Lalita used to make phone calls in neighbourhood to ask wellbeing of her siblings but the neighbours did not call the kids to speak, while Shivlal was at home because of his terror, 15 when Lalita lastly spoke with her prosecutrix daughter over telephone, then she informed that her father Shivlal had committed rape upon her and he had committed such unlawful act on six occasions, in his cross examination, he has also said that Ex.P.1 was got registered by his sister but he had come alongwith her for the same and Ex.P.1 report was submitted before S.P. Sirohi. He has also said that he did not speak with prosecutrix before lodging of FIR. This witness has also been cross examined at length in six pages but anything contrary has not come out.
PW.3 Vrindavan Singh is a prosecution witness before whom arrest of accused was made vide Ex.P.2 and this witness has corroborated the arrest memo Ex.P.2 and has admitted his signatures on it. PW.8. Kanhiyalal has admitted Ex.D.1 and Ex.P.5 and has also said that vide Ex.P.2 the accused was arrested before him.
PW.9 Smt. Santosh wife of Prakash has turned hostile and this witness is a neighbour of the accused but she has said that accused was residing alone with his children.
PW.11 Shopu wife of Rata Prajapat is also a neighbour of the accused and she has said that Shivlal was residing near her house. She has also admitted that 16 Lalita used to make telephone calls on her phone, but no such call was received during her presence.
11. PW.14 Javanmal is a police constable and Malkhana Incharge, who has got deposited the sealed packets vide Ex.P.18 and registering the same in Malkhana Register vide Ex.P.19 and he has said that he had consigned the samples to Constable Rajendra Prasad for FSL Examination vide Ex.P.12 and Rajendra Prasad had submitted a receipt after depositing the same in FSL and its entry in the register is Ex.P.18 and Ex.P.19 which is written by his hand.
PW.13 Rajendra Prasad a constable has deposited the samples with FSL and has admitted Ex.P.12 to Ex.P.14 and Ex.P.17.
Likewise PW.10 Hamir Singh is also a police constable corroborating Ex.P.12 to Ex.P.14. He has also said that he had rendered the samples to Rajendra Prasad for depositing in the FSL.
PW.15 Raghunathram is a police constable before him Ex.D.1 site-map was drawn of venue and has also corroborated Ex.P.5 seizure of victim's underwear. PW.17 Kailash Daan has conducted investigation of the case and he has corroborated and ratified Ex.D.1, Ex.P.5, Ex.P.11, Ex.P.15, Ex.D.2, Ex.D.5, Ex.P1, Ex.P.20, Ex.P.2, Ex.D.3, Ex.P.13, Ex.P.12 and Ex.P.21 and has 17 also said that he had submitted charge-sheet against accused under Section 376 of IPC, in his cross examination, he has also said that prosecutrix was brought on 14 and 15 for medical examination by Rajendra Singh. He has also said that he had moved an application before the Munsif Saheb for recording of statements of prosecutrix under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. This witness has also been cross-examined at length but nothing abnormal has emerged.
12. Statements of prosecutrix which were recorded vide Ex.D.3 on 16/1/2007 under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. reads as under:-
"ihfM+rk lqUnj ls iwNk x;k rks mlus c;ku fd;k fd esjs mij fdlh izdkj dk dksbZ ncko ugha gS eSa LoSPNk ls c;ku ns jgh gwWa] eSa viuk Hkyk cqjk le>rh gwWaA ge rhu cfgus gSa] eSa lcls cM+h gwWa] ,d HkkbZ gSA ekWa ls esjs ikik us ekjihV dh rks og ufugky pyh xbZ FkhA N% eghus ls esjh ekWa ufugky gh jg jgh gSA esjs ikik us esjs lkFk xyr dke fd;k gS nhikoyh ds 6&7 fnu ckn ls vc rd esjs lkFk 6 ckj xyr dke fd;k A esjs lkFk esjs ikik us oSlk fd;k gS tSlk ifr iRuh ds lkFk djrk gS] eSa esjh firk ls Mjrh gwWaA xokg@ihfM+rk ds dFku mlds dgsa vuqlkj ys[kc) fd, x, tks mlus lqudj lgh gksuk Lohdkj dj gLrk{kj fd,A"
and narration pertaining to the offence of committing rape by her own father has been uttered and summarized in identical manner, under statements of Section 164 of CrPC, as well.
She has also said that her father ravaged her and 18 such wrong was committed for six times starting from six to seven days ahead of Deepawali. Ex.P.6 the medical report has also got an opinion of Medical Board that patient (prosecutrix) is habitual of sexual intercourse and all the members of medical board has admitted examining the prosecution and getting Ex.P.6 signed. Lady Doctor Veena Rani has also admitted examining the prosecutrix. Under the statements of 313 of Cr.P.C, the accused has admitted that prosecutrix is his own daughter and she was residing with him and she was of 13 years of age, but only defence, which has been raised by the accused is that his wife concocted a false case, in order to secure custody of kids..
13. Cumulative assessment of the aforediscussed testimony is enough to conclude that appellant accused was a custodian and guardian of her teenaged victim girl and all his four minor kids were staying and residing with accused after development of of sour relations between the couple and after separation from his wife.
Statements of teenaged prosecutrix does not show any kind of tuitoring or flimsiness but evaluation of her evidence discloses that she was repeatedly raped by her father at frequent intervals, she was under 19
psychological trauma and tried to deter her "sire", but being tender could not succeed and ultimately revealed unpleasant perperated upon her to her mother Lalita, when she made a telephonic call at neighbour's residence and mother came alongwith his brother for rescuing her and further lodged complaint before the Superintendent of Police, Sirohi vide Ex.P.1 and after getting a recommendatory endorsement of S.P. Sirohi over it, the same was registered with the police.
14. Medically, the prosecutrix has been found habitual of intercourse and non-virgin, besides, testimony of medical witnesses has corroborated the crime perperated upon the prosecutrix, by her own father.
Evidential and factual aspect of this matter candidly corroborates that a teenager girl was repeatedly ravished by his own father, while her mother was away, owing to estrange relations with her spouse and trauma of a teenaged thirteen years girl could very well be estimated, so avoidance to convey the incident to anybody after incident or any kind of inconsistency or recording of her statement under Section 164 prior to Parchabayan or little understanding of child witness are in Non-Existence in this case, hence the law relied by learned counsel for the appellant are of no assistance to the defence rather the judgment of 20 Mohd. Imran Khan vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), 2011 Cr.L.R. (SC) 901 supports the case of the prosecution. So far as age of the prosecutrix is concerned, the same has been admitted by her accused father being thirteen years and living of all the four kids with their father for about retro six months after departure of their mother, so the aspect of tuitoring is also devoid and we do not find any mitigating factor rather an aggravating factor appears to be in existence because a guardian and begotter of progeny has perperated the crime. Rape is not merely a physical assault, rather it often distracts the whole personality of the victim and the crime degrades the very soul of the helpless female and, therefore, the testimony of the prosecutrix needs to be appreciated in the background of the entire case and in such cases, even non- expression of other witnesses may not be a serious infirmity in the prosecution case. (Vide: State of Maharashtra v. Chandraprakash Kewalchand Jain, AIR 1990 SC 658; State of U.P. v. Pappu @Yunus & Anr. AIR 2005 SC 1248; and Vijay @ Chinee v. State of M.P., (2010) 8 SCC 191). As such, the statement of prosecutrix, if found to be worthy of credence and reliable, requires no corroboration.
Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab Vs. 21 Gurmit Singh & Ors., AIR 1996 SC 1393 has observed that the Courts must, while evaluating evidence remain alive to the fact that in a case of rape, no self-respecting woman would come forward in a Court just to make a humiliating statement against her honour such as is involved in the commission of rape on her.
Similarly, in Wahid Khan v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2010) 2 SCC 9, it has been observed as under:
"It is also a matter of common law that in Indian society any girl or woman would not make such allegations against a person as she is fully aware of the repercussions flowing therefrom. If she is found to be false, she would be looked at by the society with contempt throughout her life. For an unmarried girl, it will be difficult to find a suitable groom. Therefore, unless an offence has really been committed, a girl or a woman would be extremely reluctant even to admit that any such incident had taken place which is likely to reflect on her chastity. She would also be conscious of the danger of being ostracised by the society. It would indeed be difficult for her to survive in Indian society which is, of course, not as forward-looking as the western countries are."
In Himachal Pradesh vs. Asharam, Hon'ble Supreme Court while passing judgment on 17/11/2005 has observed that rape committed by a father with his own daughter is an offence in a nature of rarest of rare and required to be dealt stringently and has also observed that more so, when the perpetrator of the crime is the father against his own daughter it is more 22 graver and the rarest of rare, which warrants a strong deterrent judicial hand. Even in ordinary criminal terminology a rape is a crime more heinous than murder as it destroys the very soul of hapless woman. This is more so when the perpetrator of the grave crime is the father of the victim girl. Father is a fortress, refuge and the trustee of his daughter. By betraying the trust and taking undue advantage of trust reposed in him by the daughter, serving food at odd hours at 12.30 A.M. he ravished the chastity of his daughter, jeopardized her future prospect of getting married, enjoying marital and conjugal life, has been totally devastated. Not only that, she carries an indelible social stigma on her head and deathless shame as long as she lives.
In Sevaka Perumal v. State of T.N. (1991) 3 SC 471, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has cautioned :-
"Undue sympathy to impose inadequate sentence would do more harm to the justice (delivery) system to undermine the public confidence in the efficacy of law and society could not long endure under serious threats. If the Courts did not protect the injured, the injured would then resort to private vengeance. It is, therefore, the duty of every Court to award proper sentence having regard to the nature of the offence and the manner in which it was executed or committed etc."
15. A "sire", is duty bound to discharge his fatherly obligations towards "siblings" in a solemn way, but in 23 total transgression of established norms and cherished legacy and also acting against law, appellant-accused ravaged the chastity of his own daughter not only singly but at multiple frequency.
Enormity of brutal assault could well be perceived by non-existence of hymen with having been found habitual is a grave crime attributing indelible blot on the fatherhood. Agony of such a victim girl and her trauma is perceptible, so we feel that learned trial Court has fairly condemned the accused with life imprisonment and we do not find any mitigating factor in the matter under hand because the appellant- accused was around forty two when he ousted his wife and committed rape upon his own daughter, hence, likelihood of rendering any sustenance to the kids and family is shrowded with doubt and is beleaguered.
In view of the above, we do not find any substance in the instant appeal.
Consequently, the appeal lacks merit hence is dismissed.
[ G.R. MOOLCHANDANI], J. [GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS], J. Sanjay Solanki, PA