A special POCSO court in Pune has sentenced a 42-year-old worker to 20 years of rigorous imprisonment for repeatedly sexually assaulting his minor daughter. The court held that despite the survivor and her mother later softening their stand, the law does not permit forgiving such offenders.
Court's Observations
Special Judge S R Salunkhe, in his ruling on May 16, stated that the survivor's testimony remained reliable and was corroborated by her earlier statements, medical evidence, and her conduct during deposition. The medical report recorded evidence of sexual assault and injuries consistent with the allegations.
While convicting the accused, the judge remarked, "What the accused did was most unfortunate, causing a stigma to the sacrosanct relationship between father and daughter. He has caused irreparable damage to human relationships." The court observed that the informant and the victim may forgive the accused, but the law does not permit forgiveness. However, the judge also noted that the punishment should not completely destroy the dreams of the accused's innocent children, who should retain hope of seeing their father after his sentence.
Details of the Case
According to public prosecutor Anilkumar Verma, the sexual assaults occurred between July 2024 and February 2025. The survivor, then 13 years old, lived with the accused in Pune. The mother lodged an FIR on March 1, 2025, after child welfare authorities received information about the girl not attending school and initiated an inquiry.
The survivor's mother, a domestic help raising four children including the survivor, later did not support the prosecution's case and even denied the allegations in her complaint. The court held that her hostility did not demolish the prosecution's case, observing that she likely changed her stand due to family responsibilities and concern for her children's future.
Reliance on Survivor's Testimony
The court relied heavily on the survivor's in-camera testimony, noting that she became emotional and cried while narrating the incidents and again upon seeing the accused in court. The judge observed that her emotions and demeanor spoke volumes. Rejecting the defence argument that the survivor had been tutored, the court said there was no reason why a minor girl would falsely implicate her father with such grave allegations.
This case highlights the legal system's stance on sexual crimes against minors, emphasizing that even familial relationships do not mitigate the severity of such offenses.
