Madras HC upholds life sentence of man after sexual assault of 4-yr-old daughter

Dismissing the appeal moved by the victim’s father convicted under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (Pocso) Act, 2012, a division bench comprising Justice PN Prakash and Justice R Hemalatha, said “Sexual assault of a child that too by her own father is even more serious and deserves no leniency and it is a matter of shame that grounds are invented to save the appellant when the child's statements have pinned him down.” 

“This is just a tip of the iceberg and therefore such crimes deserve the maximum punishment with no leniency to be shown,” the court held.

Penning the order, Justice Hemalatha also held “Our culture, tradition and customs have always been treating children as God. The divinity in children is due to their innocence in them and their nature to forgive others. Any act of sexual abuse on child is nothing but exploitation of the innocence.” 

“In the instant case, this extract from the evidence is heart wrenching. The translation of the above extract is that on 23.10.2015 when I was watching TV, the child was playing with her doll asking the doll whether her father had placed his male organ on her genitals, anus and mouth and whether the doll was weeping", the court observed.

“The damage caused to the psyche of the victim child is devastating and, in many cases, irreversible too,” the court lamented while directing the accused father to surrender before the Mahila Court, Coimbatore, failing which the trial Court shall take steps to secure him for undergoing the sentence.

The court also set aside submissions of the appellant that the child was tutored by her grandmother and therefore it cannot be relied upon.

“This contention also is on a weak premise because the deposition of the victim before the Trial Court is more than sufficient and the fact that she withstood the testimony of cross examination clearly reveals she has not been tutored and she has only told the truth in her own language with all innocence and oblivious of the seriousness and consequence of the crime committed by her own father,” the bench recorded in its order.

“Even her language and innocence remained unadulterated. She had no ill feeling or hatred towards her father,” the court added while noting that this ground again does not carry any conviction and deserves to be trashed.