Sikkim High Court upholds conviction of man for raping 80-year-old grandmother

In a landmark judgment, the Sikkim High Court has upheld the conviction of a 24-year-old man for repeatedly raping his 80-year-old maternal grandmother. The Division Bench, comprising Justice Meenakshi Madan Rai and Justice Bhaskar Raj Pradhan delivered the verdict in Criminal Appeal No. 07 of 2023.

Background of the case

The case stems from a series of horrific incidents in which the accused, who lived with his grandmother (the victim), mother and father, sexually abused the elderly woman on multiple occasions. The first assault reportedly occurred in January/February 2022, followed by further incidents in March/April and April/May of the same year.

Out of shame and fear of threats from her grandson, the victim initially did not disclose the assaults to anyone. However, after the third incident, she took refuge in a neighbour’s house and later stayed with another person named Kamal Rai for 16-17 days. When her daughter (the accused’s mother) returned and tried to take her home, the victim refused and revealed the repeated sexual assaults.

On May 8, 2022, the victim, accompanied by her daughter, filed a complaint with the police. The accused was subsequently charged under sections 376(2)(f) (rape of a woman related to the accused), 376(2)(n) (repeated rape of the same woman) and 506 (criminal intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code.

Legal issues and court decisions

The main issues for the court were the credibility of the victim’s testimony, the delay in reporting the crime and the sufficiency of evidence for a conviction.

1. Statement of the victim: The court found the victim’s statement to be reliable and trustworthy. Justice Meenakshi Madan Rai observed, “If a court finds that the statement of a complainant inspires the confidence of the court and is considered to be reliable and trustworthy, the court can rely solely on her statement in convicting the accused and need not look elsewhere for corroboration of her statement.”

2. Delay in reporting: On the delay in filing the FIR, the court referred to Supreme Court precedents and observed that such delays are not necessarily fatal to the prosecution, especially in cases involving close relatives. The court observed, “This would of course explain the victim’s reluctance to speak about the incident, not to mention the daunting task of reporting the incident to the police.”

3. Confirmatory evidence: The court noted that the victim’s statement was corroborated by her daughter (PW-3) and another witness (PW-5) who had given shelter to the victim. The medical examination, though inconclusive, did not rule out sexual assault.

Court’s observations

The Supreme Court emphasised the importance of the testimony of the victim and her daughter against their own grandson and son respectively. Justice Rai observed, “Both PW-2 and PW-3 have lodged the complaint against their own grandson and son respectively, which, had there not been any cogent reasons, no grandparent or mother would have done otherwise.”

The court also stressed the victim’s vulnerability and the breach of trust that came with the crime. “The court therefore saw no reason not to believe the victim, an elderly woman who, at her age, would probably not make such an accusation against her own grandchild unless she had no other choice,” the ruling said.

also read

Diploma

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and upheld both the conviction and the sentence imposed by the West Sikkim Fast Track Court. The appellant remains sentenced to life imprisonment for the rape charge and two years for criminal intimidation, as well as to pay fines.