The Supreme Court upheld the conviction of a father for raping his minor daughter, quoting Manusmriti to emphasise that the dignity of women is non-negotiable and forms part of India’s constitutional vision, not just cultural tradition.
The Supreme Court, in a recent ruling, chose not to intervene in the conviction and sentencing of a father found guilty of raping his minor daughter.
In its decision, the Court referenced the Manusmriti, asserting that the verses quoted embody not just a cultural principle but a constitutional vision.
This ruling followed a Special Leave Petition against a judgment from the Himachal Pradesh High Court, which had upheld the petitioner’s conviction under Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, and Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code.
Justices Aravind Kumar and Sandeep Kumar of the bench observed,
“This verse reflects not merely a cultural principle but a constitutional vision. The dignity of women is non-negotiable, and our legal system must not permit repeated intrusion into that dignity under the guise of misplaced sympathy or alleged procedural fairness.”
The Court further noted that when a father a figure expected to provide protection and serve as a moral guide becomes the perpetrator of severe violations against his child’s bodily integrity, “the betrayal is not only personal but institutional.”
It emphasized,
“The home, which should be a sanctuary, cannot be permitted to become a site of unspeakable trauma, and the courts must send a clear signal that such offences will be met with an equally unsparing judicial response. To entertain a plea for leniency in a case of this nature would not merely be misplaced, it would constitute a betrayal of the Court’s own constitutional duty to protect the vulnerable. When a child is forced to suffer at the hands of her own father, the law must speak in a voice that is resolute and uncompromising. There can be no mitigation in sentencing for crimes that subvert the very notion of family as a space of security.”
The petitioner was represented by Advocate-on-Record Krishna Pal Singh.
The Court expressed that the Trial Court had thoroughly evaluated the victim’s oral testimony, corroborating evidence from her elder sister, and compelling forensic and medical records, leading to a justified verdict of guilt.
Also Read: “Manusmriti” Introduced as Part Of Syllabus in Delhi University Law Faculty
The High Court had subsequently affirmed this conviction and imposed a life sentence, along with a fine.
The Court stated,
“It is now well settled that the testimony of a child victim, if found credible and trustworthy, requires no corroboration. The Courts below have not merely accepted the victim’s account, they have validated it through unimpeachable scientific evidence. The DNA report sealed the evidentiary chain and has dispelled all doubts in the prosecution case which is sought to be assailed by the petitioner.”
The Court dismissed the argument that the petitioner was falsely implicated due to strained family relationships and disapproval of his daughters’ romantic associations, calling it “completely hollow.”
It stressed that the dignity of women is non-negotiable, and the legal system should not allow repeated violations of that dignity under the pretense of misplaced sympathy or procedural fairness.
“Let it be stated unambiguously that entertaining the present petition or remotely considering the grant of bail in a case of this nature, after the guilt has been proved and affirmed, would not merely undermine the majesty of the law, it would amount to a betrayal of the constitutional promise made to every child of this country. It would be, in the considered view of this Court, a judicial insult to the sanctity of womanhood and a blow to every mother who teaches her child to believe in justice.”
The Court reiterated that when a father, who should be a protector, becomes the source of extreme violations against a child’s dignity, the betrayal transcends personal boundaries to become institutional.
Also Read: Rajasthan High Court Cites Manusmriti, Orders Rs 3 Lakh for Minor Rape Survivors
It concluded that such heinous acts cannot be condoned under the guise of rehabilitation or reform.
The Court emphasized,
“Incestuous sexual violence committed by a parent is a distinct category of offence that tears through the foundational fabric of familial trust and must invite the severest condemnation in both language and sentence,”
Citing its earlier decision in Nipun Saxena v. Union of India (2019), the Court ordered the payment of Rs.10,50,000 to the victim girl and ultimately dismissed the petition.
Case Title: Bhanei Prasad @Raju vs. State of Himachal Pradesh
Read Attachment
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
