Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

The evidence on record points towards only one conclusion and that is that Inderpreet Singh the accused in the present case has developed intrafamilial relationship with his first cousin and it is only as a result of the same that the prosecutrix was compelled to leave her house and marry him, a fact which find due corroboration from the testimony of her mother Smt. Manjeet Kaur (PW5). I may mention that in a cases of incest the only witness is the prosecutrix and there can be no independent corroboration and that too when the said relationship extends over a period of time. It is not the law that in every case version of the prosecutrix must be corroborated in material particulars by independent evidence on record. It all depends on the quality of the evidence of the prosecutrix. If the court is satisfied that the evidence of the prosecutrix is free from blemish and is implicitly reliable, then on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix, the conviction can be recorded though in appropriate cases, the court may look for corroboration from independent sources or from the circumstances of the case before recording an order of conviction.

I have considered the rival contentions. It is not disputed that the parties before this court are Sapindas, the accused being the son of Tayaji of the prosecutrix 'T'. Initially the prosecutrix used to reside with her Bua's house at Jaipur and at the age of eight years she came back to her parents house. The accused was seven years elder to her and the prosecutrix being weak in studies used to take tuitions from the accused a fact which has been proved by the mother of the prosecutrix namely Manjeet Kaur. It was during this period when the prosecutrix was in class 10th that the accused developed physical relations with her on the pretext that he was in love with her. According to the prosecutrix, she had even told to her first cousin i.e. daughter of her Masi about the incident and the conduct of the accused but incidentally the daughter of the Masi of the prosecutrix has not been examined by the prosecution. The case in hand pertains to incestuous relationship which continued over a long period of almost 12 years and at the very outset, I may observe that the consent of the prosecutrix if any would otherwise be immaterial on two counts Firstly because at the time of the inception of the relationship the prosecutrix was hardly 14 to 15 years of age and was studying in class 10th. Being legally incapable of giving the consent i.e. not even having arrived at the age of consent, presuming that she consented to such a relationship, the said consent would be immaterial. Secondly because of both the parties are closely related by blood. Incest constitutes a cultural taboo in most societies and is prohibited by law. Members of the family covered by the incest prohibition vary from one society to another. In some cases only those related by birth or those who live in the same household are included whereas in some societies it also includes those related by adoption, marriage, or clan. However, this incest prohibition universally covers close members such as siblings or parents and children, while the prohibitions on more distant relatives, such as cousins, vary from one society to another depending upon the cultural taboos. Whatever the extent of the prohibition, incest is universally condemned and viewed with horror. The existing social, cultural and the law prohibits such a relationship and hence the question of consent in any incestuous relationship if any again would not arise in cases of incest.

50% of child sexual abuse happens at home. In 1996, Samvada, a Bangalore based NGO, conducted a study among 348 girls. 15% were used for masturbation mostly by male relatives when they were less than 10 years old. 75% of the abusers were adult family members. A report from RAHI, (Recovering and Healing from Incest), a Delhi based NGO working with child sexual abuse titled Voices from the Silent Zone suggests that nearly three-quarters of upper and middle class Indian girls are abused by a family member - often by an uncle, a cousin or an elder brother. (Rel. on material from Internet) The prosecutrix before this court is one of the thousands of such victims who have suffered this kind of intrafamilial sexual abuse since her childhood and the violator being none other than her first cousin i.e. son of the real brother of her father (Tayaji). During the childhood the prosecutrix had gone to her Bua's house at Jaipur and had come back to Delhi at the age of eight years and was put in a local school but not being very good in studies the family advised her to take tuitions particularly in Mathematics from the accused Inderpreet Singh (seven years older than the prosecutrix) who was her first cousin as she was to prepare for her board exams. During this period taking advantage of the fact that there was no inhibition in the family being close relative, the accused developed close physical relations with the prosecutrix claiming love for her which perhaps reflected even in her personal life and adversely affected her studies when she failed in class 10th. The accused maintained physical relations with the prosecutrix for almost twelve years claiming that he did so out of love since he could not see any one else marrying her and in fact under these circumstances nobody else would marry her. During this period when the accused maintained physical relations with the prosecutrix that the prosecutrix realized that she had become pregnant from the accused that she insisted upon the marriage which otherwise was impermissible under the Hindu Marriage Act the parties being Sapindas. In view of these circumstances, both the prosecutrix and the accused who were conforming to Sikh religion, allegedly got married at Arya Samaj Mandir, Jamuna Bazar, Delhi and obtained a certificate from Pt. Dhananjay Diwedi was devoid of any legal authority to issue such marriage certificate. On the basis of this certificate of marriage they got the marriage registered with the SDM Kanjhawla and thereafter both the prosecutrix and the accused started living residing together as husband and wife at the house of Tejpal Singh on rent. Within seven to eight months of this marriage the child which the prosecutrix was carrying was aborted on account of the alleged physical beatings given to her by the family of the accused and the accused thereafter abandoned her as a result of which she was by compulsion returned to her mother's house where she is residing ever since resulting into registration of the present case.