The Bombay High Court has rejected the defence theory of “false implication” raised by a father convicted for repeatedly raping his minor daughter, holding that no child would level such grave allegations merely out of anger over possible discontinuation of studies or early marriage. A division bench of Justices Manish Pitale and Shreeram Shirsat upheld the March 12, 2020, judgment of the Special POCSO Court, Mumbai, which convicted the man under relevant provisions of the Indian Penal Code and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for the remainder of his natural life.

The convict, a mason by profession, had appealed against the trial court’s verdict, claiming his elder daughter was forced to discontinue studies after marriage. He alleged the victim, studying in Class 10 at the time, feared the same fate and, in a fit of rage, fabricated the charges against him. The bench dismissed this contention outright:
“It was stated that the victim apprehended that her studies would also be discontinued abruptly and that she desired to study and in this backdrop, due to her anger against her own father, she concocted such a false case against him. We find that this theory sought to be floated on behalf of the appellant, cannot be accepted, for the reason that a child may be angry with her parents as it does happen when parents intend to discipline their own child. But, it would be far-fetched to accept that only for this reason, the victim made such serious, drastic and far-reaching allegations against her own father. We refuse to accept this theory sought to be floated on behalf of the appellant.”

The prosecution case unfolded on July 27, 2018, during a ‘Police Didi’ awareness programme at the victim’s municipal school. The session educated girls on good touch/bad touch and legal protections. The then 14-year-old victim gathered courage, confided in the counsellor, and, accompanied by the school principal, lodged an FIR at the local police station. She alleged her father had been inappropriately touching her since she was 10 years old. When she complained to her mother (a domestic help), there was no response. The abuse escalated three months prior to the complaint, with the father committing penetrative sexual assault on at least four occasions.

The appellant was arrested and convicted under multiple IPC sections and stringent POCSO provisions. The High Court examined the entire evidence and found the prosecution had proved the offences beyond reasonable doubt. Even assuming arguendo that minority was not strictly established, the court noted the appellant, as father, occupied a position of trust and authority, making the acts of rape clearly punishable. The bench observed that the trial court committed no error in recording conviction and imposing the maximum sentence.

Advocates Fauzan Shaikh, Mohd. Munerul Shaikh, Shashank Shubham and MB Shaikh appeared for the appellant. Additional Public Prosecutor Sangita Phad represented the State. Advocates Abhijit Kulkarni, Abhishek Roy, Sweta Shah, Shreyas Zarkar and Gourav Shahane, appointed through Legal Aid, represented the victim.

Case Title: SS vs State of Maharashtra | Criminal Appeal No. 28 of 2021