Supreme Court Quotes Manusmriti While Upholding Conviction Of Father Who Raped Minor Daughter, Says Verse Reflects Constitutional Vision

The Supreme Court, while refusing to interfere with the conviction and sentencing of a father convicted of raping his minor daughter, has quoted from the Manusmriti, stating that the quoted verses reflect not merely a cultural principle but a constitutional vision. 

The Court was considering a Special Leave Petition against a Judgement of the Himachal Pradesh High Court whereby the conviction and sentence of the Petitioner under Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code was affirmed.

The Bench of Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Sandeep Kumar quoted from the ancient scripture and observed, "This verse reflects not merely a cultural principle but a constitutional vision. The dignity of women is non-negotiable, and our legal system must not permit repeated intrusion into that dignity under the guise of misplaced sympathy or alleged procedural fairness".

The Court also observed that when a father who is expected to be a shield, a guardian, a moral compass, becomes the source of the most severe violation of a child’s bodily integrity and dignity, "the betrayal is not only personal but institutional".

The Court further stated, " .....The home, which should be a sanctuary, cannot be permitted to become a site of unspeakable trauma, and the courts must send a clear signal that such offences will be met with an equally unsparing judicial response. To entertain a plea for leniency in a case of this nature would not merely be misplaced, it would constitute a betrayal of the Court’s own constitutional duty to protect the vulnerable. When a child is forced to suffer at the hands of her own father, the law must speak in a voice that is resolute and uncompromising. There can be no mitigation in sentencing for crimes that subvert the very notion of family as a space of security."

The Petitioner was represented by Advocate-on-Record Krishna Pal Singh.

The Court was of the view that the Trial Court upon meticulous evaluation of the oral testimony of the victim, the corroborating evidence of her elder sister, and the compelling forensic and medical records, had rightly returned a verdict of guilt and the High Court in a well-reasoned judgment, has affirmed the conviction and imposed the sentence of life imprisonment, in addition to fine.

"It is now well settled that the testimony of a child victim, if found credible and trustworthy, requires no corroboration. The Courts below have not merely accepted the victim’s account, they have validated it through unimpeachable scientific evidence. The DNA report sealed the evidentiary chain and has dispelled all doubts in the prosecution case which is sought to be assailed by the petitioner", the Court held.

It rejected the contention that the Petitioner was falsely implicated due to strained domestic relationships and disapproval of romantic alliances of his daughters as "completely hollow".

Stressing that the dignity of women is non-negotiable, and the legal system must not permit repeated intrusion into that dignity under the guise of misplaced sympathy or alleged procedural fairness, the Court observed, "Let it be stated unambiguously that entertaining of the present petition or remotely considering the grant of bail in a case of this nature, after the guilt has been proved and affirmed, would not merely undermine the majesty of the law, it would amount to a betrayal of the constitutional promise made to every child of this country. It would be, in the considered view of this Court, a judicial insult to the sanctity of  womanhood and a blow to every mother who teaches her child to believe in justice."

It noted that when a father who is expected to be a shield, a guardian, a moral compass, becomes the source of the most severe violation of a child’s bodily integrity and dignity, the betrayal is not only personal but institutional and, the law does not, and cannot, condone such acts under the guise of rehabilitation or reform.

"Incestuous sexual violence committed by a parent is a distinct category of offence that tears through the foundational fabric of familial trust and must invite the severest condemnation in both language and sentence", the Court stressed.

Referring to its decision of the Apex Court in Nipun Saxena v. Union of India (2019), the Court directed payment of a sum of ₹10,50,000/- to the victim girl.

The Petition was accordingly dismissed.

Cause Title: Bhanei Prasad @Raju vs. State of Himachal Pradesh

Appearances:

Petitioner- Advocate-on-Record Krishna Pal Singh

Click here to read/ download Order