Court in Kerala sentences man to 101 years and life imprisonment for raping his underage daughter

Reading time: 11 minutes

A special fast-track court in the Kerala district of Mallapuram has sentenced the man Muhammad H.* to 101 years imprisonment and life imprisonment for the rape of his minor daughter under various provisions of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act), the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Juvenile Justice Act (JJ Act).

In sentencing the 43-year-old last week, the court expressed in stark terms the lifelong impact this heinous crime would have on the girl.

“The accused is the father of the minor, who is obliged to protect her

committed the heinous crime on her. It began in her tender years and continued till she got pregnant by him at the age of 16. It cannot be equated with the usual sexual crimes. Though the accused comes from an educationally and economically underdeveloped family, he does not deserve any mercy,” the court headed by Smt Resmi S observed.

The man started sexually abusing his daughter when she was ten years old, and when she was twelve years old, he committed aggravated sexual assault on her by raping her while her mother was sleeping or not at home. At 16, the girl became pregnant and was subsequently taken to the hospital by her father. The hospital examined her and found that she was three months pregnant. Although the man had told his daughter not to tell anyone, the police took her statement at the hospital, following which her pregnancy was terminated. She was then taken to a children’s home in Manjeri. The minor victim gave her statement before the magistrate and evidence was presented to the magistrate. The DNA sample was also presented to the magistrate along with the fetus of the minor victim, which established that Muhammad H. was the biological father of the fetus.

The victim’s mother also stated in her statement that her daughter had blamed her father and grandfather for the pregnancy. Other family members also testified against the defendant.

The main argument of the defence was that at the time of the alleged sexual assault, the victim was staying in an orphanage from where she was going to school and that the children went home only once a week or month. Moreover, the defence claimed that the father himself took the girl to the hospital after she complained of vomiting and dizziness. In fact, the defence claimed that the victim had also alleged sexual assault by her grandfather and that she had eloped with a boy against whom a POCSO case was pending and that the date of pregnancy and the date of her eloping coincided with the boy. However, the girl had stated that she did so only due to the constant abuse at home and never had a romantic relationship with the boy.

The court took note of the FSL report which confirmed that Muhammad H was the biological father of the foetus. The scientific examiner was of the opinion that the father shares exactly 50% DNA with the child and the percentage of this probability in this case was noted in her laboratory worksheet. In this background, the court observed that DNA is a conclusive result and the Supreme Court decision in Aparna Ajinkya Firodia v. Ajinkya Arun Firodia (2023 KHC 6155) had already held that “in case of disputed paternity of a child, a mere comparison of DNA obtained from bodily fluids or bodily tissues of the child with those of his parents provides infallible proof of biological parentage”.

“Thus, the medical and scientific evidence in this case confirms the allegation of sexual abuse of the minor PW2 by the accused. There are no contradictions in the testimony of PW2 as compared to her FIS and earlier statements. The oral testimony of the mother PW1 that the accused slept with PW2 also confirms the testimony of PW2,” the court said.

The court said all the evidence established the offence of rape and sexual abuse of the minor by her father when she was below 12 years of age and thereafter. “The accused, being the father of the minor, has abused the trust of the minor and his authority over her,” the court said, adding that he was proven to have committed the offences under Sections 354A(2), 354A(1)(i), 376AB, 376(3), 376(2)(n), 376(2)(f), 506(ii) IPC and Sections 10 read with 9(m), 10 9(n), 6 read with 5(m), 5(l), 5(n) and 5(j)(ii) of the POCSO Act and Section 75 of the Juvenile Justice Act.

“Moreover, such actions by parents towards a child who trusts them, especially when the girl considers the father as her protector, have serious implications for her entire future life. The impact of such crimes on society as a whole must also be considered. Such offences deserve a deterrent punishment,” the court said while sentencing him to a total term of 101 years and life imprisonment. It further noted that the life imprisonment will take effect once he completes the other sentences and the substitute sentences.

(*Initials of the name are used to protect the identity of the victim)