Rape convict challenges HC judgement in SC

A man undergoing life term for reportedly raping his minor daughter has approached the Supreme Court challenging his conviction saying his wife used his 14-year-old daughter to implicate him. 

A two-judge, bench presided over by Justice A K Sikri, issued a notice to the Chhattisgarh government on the petition of the 35-year-old man against the high court judgement on February 25, 2015. The court asked his counsel Dushyant Parashar to explain the delay of over three years in filing the special leave petition.

Parashar said he was appearing as legal aid counsel. “Though there is a provision for free legal aid to those who are poor and are willing to take services of empanelled counsel, there is abject lack of awareness among the litigants over it,” he said. The counsel submitted that in the instant case, appellant Kumar Sai, a resident of Rajnandgaon in Chhattisgarh learnt about the legal aid after a fellow convict availed the service and got relief.

He also sought a direction to the National Legal Aid Services Authority to streamline the process and create an awareness programme among the litigants. Refraining from issuing the judicial directions to the legal aid authority, the bench agreed to consider the matter.

 In his special leave petition, Sai contended that the high court ignored the fact that the prosecution story did not match with the medical examination report that was uncertain about sexual assault since there was external and internal injury on the victim. He also questioned the two-day delay in registering the FIR on December 3 when the incident occurred on December 1, 2007.

“The high court’s reasoning that the mother would not use her daughter as an instrument to get rid of her husband, has no sanction of law in as much as every action has to be seen within the facts and circumstances of the case,” his petition contended.

 The high court has upheld the conviction and life term sentence awarded to the petitioner, saying there was no reason to disbelieve the testimony of the victim. “Here the victim is the daughter and the appellant is the father. She has no reason to falsely implicate her father. Why would a minor daughter falsely implicate her father in such a case of sexual molestation. She was studying in 7th standard and thus, she must be aware of the far reaching affects of such allegations in her entire life,” the high court had said.