Delhi’s Tis Hazari Court has sentenced a 44-year-old man to life imprisonment for raping and impregnating his minor daughter, saying it was a “diabolical crime” deserving no leniency.
Additional Sessions Judge Babita Puniya was hearing a case against the father of the victim whom the court convicted in January this year.
The prosecution had accused him under the provisions of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act for aggravated penetrative sexual assault and under the penal provisions for rape.
“The diabolical nature of the crime and the fact that the victim was the daughter of the convict and was in his care and protection, clearly outweigh the personal circumstances of the convict, including his age,” the court asserted.
The convict had contended that he was the sole breadwinner of his family, which included elderly parents, his wife, and four children. He also asserted that, being under the influence of alcohol, he was unable to discern whether the victim was his wife or daughter.
“I am not impressed by the argument of the convict in his mitigation. I cannot imagine a father who cannot differentiate between his wife and minor daughter. Even otherwise, the diabolical act was not committed once but he subjected his own minor daughter to repeated acts of rape and impregnated her,” Judge Puniya stated.
“The convict has failed dismally to show the existence of substantial and compelling reasons for taking a lenient view,” she added.
The court noted several aggravating factors against the convict, including that he raped her minor daughter repeatedly, following which the victim became pregnant and gave birth in February last year.
At the time of giving birth to her father’s child, the girl was 17 years old, as noted by the court. It further mentioned that during the trial, the convict had penned a letter to his daughter, attempting to emotionally manipulate her. The court stated that the “aggravating factors outweighed the mitigating factors.” “I conclude that there are no substantial and compelling circumstances justifying this court to deviate from the sentence of life imprisonment,” the judge stated. “Life sentence would serve the interest of justice as well as of the society. Further, it will also not destroy the convict, though it will serve as a general deterrence,” she added. The child born to the victim has been placed with the special adoption agency.
