Relying on testimonies of a minor girl and her minor brother, the Bombay high court recently upheld the conviction and life sentence of their father for sexually assaulting them.
Relying on testimonies of a minor girl and her minor brother, the Bombay high court recently upheld the conviction and life sentence of their father for sexually assaulting them. The court held that once evidence of victim is found to be reliable, no other impediment could come in upholding conviction of the accused.
The prosecution case is that after the death of their mother both the victims started residing with their aunt Bharati tai. The accused, Jaikumar Gedam (35), a resident of Pune, used to visit the children occasionally. Around six months after his wife’s death on December 28, 2011, the accused visited Bharati’s house and took his 10-year-old daughter with him on the pretext of buying her shoes.
The accused took her under the culvert bridge near Mrutyunjay temple and raped her. The next day when Bharati was bathing the girl, she noticed some injuries on her body and asked her about them. It was then that the girl revealed what had happened to her.
Bharati then immediately took the victim to the police station and a case of rape was registered against the father. Soon, when the girl’s brother was inquired, he said their father had sexually exploited him as well.
During trial the accused denied all the charges and claimed that the children were giving false evidence against him at the instance of their aunt. The defence also pointed out that according to the medical report of the daughter, her hymen was intact which proves that she was not raped.
However, the division bench of Justice V.K. Tahilramani and Justice Dr Shalini Phansalkar-Joshi observed that the trial judge had asked the victim specific questions about the action of her father and she categorically pointed out to her body parts and explained what her father did to her.
“In view of settled position of law in respect of sexual offence, the evidence of victim is of particular significance and conviction can safely be recorded on her sole testimony if her evidence is found to be worthy of credence and it does not suffer from any basic infirmity,” observed the bench. It also said, “The law is also well-settled that corroboration to her testimony is neither a rule or law, nor of prudence. Conversely to insist on such corroboration is adding insult to her injury.”
The bench held that there is no possibility of the victims giving false evidence against their own father, considering the fact that these two children were minor and their mother has died. It also said that as per section 376 IPC, to constitute an offence of rape, even slight penetration is sufficient. The hymen need not be torn.
