Father Expected To Be Protector, Turned Out To Be Source Of Suffering: Madras High Court Upholds POCSO Conviction
The High Court affirmed a trial-court judgment convicting an accused under the POCSO Act, holding that a father’s duty is one of protection and care, and any betrayal of that duty strikes at the foundation of family and society.
The Madras High Court has upheld the life imprisonment awarded under Sections 4 and 10 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, observing that the evidence of the minor victims, corroborated by medical proof, established the offences beyond a reasonable doubt.
The Court was hearing a criminal appeal filed by the accused challenging his conviction by the Mahila Court at Salem.
A Division Bench comprising Justice N. Sathish Kumar and Justice M. Jothiraman dismissed the appeal, observing that there existed “no mitigating factor warranting interference with the sentence imposed by the trial Court”.
While rejecting the plea, the Bench observed: “In our culture, father occupies a revered placed next to mother and higher than teacher and the divine, as expressed in the traditional saying “Matha (mother), Pitha (father), Guru (Teacher), Deivam (God)”. A father's paramount duty is to ensure the safety, emotional wellbeing, and moral upbringing of his children. When such a sacred responsibility is let down, it strikes at the very foundation of the family and Society.”
Advocate V. Thamizhanban represented the petitioner, while A. Damodaran, Addl. Public Prosecutor appeared on behalf of the respondents.
Background
The prosecution alleged that the accused repeatedly subjected his two minor daughters to sexual assault. The complaint was lodged by a child-welfare official, leading to registration of an FIR under Sections 5(l), 6, 7, 8 of the POCSO Act and Section 506 (ii) IPC.
After the investigation, the case was taken on file before the Sessions Court. On conclusion of trial, the accused was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment for the offence under Section 4 and to seven years for the offence under Section 10 of the Act.
Challenging the conviction, the accused filed the present appeal, contending that there were inconsistencies in the evidence of the victims, an unexplained delay in lodging the complaint, and family disputes leading to false implication.
Court’s Observation
The Madras High Court noted that the testimony of the minor victims was consistent and credible, and the medical evidence confirmed signs of sexual assault.
The Court observed that the cross-examination of the victims was unduly delayed by several months and reiterated the Supreme Court’s direction in Vinod Kumar v. State of Punjab (2015) that “it is imperative that if the examination-in-chief is over, the cross-examination should be completed on the same day.”
The medical officer’s evidence supported the occurrence, and the school records proved that the victims were minors at the time. The Bench observed that the accused was medically examined and found potent.
Referring to the constitutional duty of parents, the Court cited Avinash Mehrotra v. Union of India (2009) to highlight that Article 51A(k) of the Constitution places a responsibility on every parent or guardian to ensure the education and moral upbringing of their children.
Expressing dismay over the incident, the Bench remarked: “Instant case is indeed a peculiar case where it is painful to note that the father, who is expected to be the protector and guardian of his children, has turned out to be the very source of their suffering.”
The Bench also remarked that alcohol addiction had played a destructive role in the case, observing: “alcohol can destroy the harmony of a family and erode moral values. The accused, instead of nurturing and protecting his daughters, allowed his inebriated state to overpower his human instincts and parental duty. The evils of alcoholism not only ruin an individual's health and character but also devastate the peace and sanctity of an entire family.”
Conclusion
Finding no infirmity in the judgment of the trial court, the Division Bench upheld the conviction and sentence imposed under Sections 4 and 10 of the POCSO Act. It held that the punishment was proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the moral depravity involved.
Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed and the conviction confirmed.
Cause Title: XYZ v. The State
Appearances
Petitioner: Advocate V. Thamizhanban
Respondents: A. Damodaran, Addl. Public Prosecutor assisted by M. Aritha Thasneem