Punjab and Haryana Excessive Court docket upholds 14-yr RI for raping daughter
Chandigarh, September 23
The Punjab and Haryana Excessive Court docket has made it clear that the courts add insult to harm by looking for, as a rule, corroboration of a rape sufferer’s assertion in instances the place the testimony conjures up confidence and is discovered to be dependable. The assertion got here as a Division Bench of the Excessive Court docket upheld 14-year rigorous imprisonment sentence slapped on a person 12 years again for raping his minor daughter.
Taking on the matter, the Bench of Justice Sureshwar Thakur and Justice NS Shekhawat asserted it was a well-settled preposition of legislation that the conviction for an offence of rape underneath Part 376 of the IPC might be primarily based on the rape sufferer’s sole testimony. Her deposition in such instances was important. Except there have been compelling causes necessitating corroboration, the courts shouldn’t discover any issue to behave on the testimony of a sexual assault sufferer alone to convict an accused the place it impressed confidence and was discovered to be dependable. “In search of corroboration of her assertion earlier than relying upon the identical, as a rule, in such instances quantities to including insult to harm,” the Bench asserted.
Referring to a Supreme Court docket judgment, the Bench asserted there may by no means be a graver and heinous crime than the daddy committing his daughter’s rape. The protector then turned the predator. The cost of raping daughter underneath his refuge was worse than a gamekeeper changing into a poacher and treasury guard changing into a robber.
The Bench, in the course of the course of listening to the petition filed method again in 2010, was advised that the case was registered in July 2008 and the accused was discovered responsible of raping his daughter vide impugned judgment and order dated January 7, 2010, handed by the Jalandhar Further Periods Choose.
After listening to rival contentions and going by way of the document, the Bench asserted it discovered the proof of the sufferer and one other witness reliable, convincing and dependable. It was protected to base the judgment of conviction on the testimonies of the 2 witnesses. The medical proof additionally supported the sufferer’s testimony, the Bench asserted, whereas upholding the trial courtroom’s findings. The Bench was assisted by amicus curiae Harmanpreet Singh.