Check spelling – Done « Plain text
A Bench of the Supreme Court comprising Justices Arijit Pasayat and P. Sathasivam sentenced a man to life imprisonment for raping his daughter in the case of Siriya @ Shri Lal v. State of Madhya Pradesh decided on May 13, 2008 saying, “There can never be more shocking, depraved and heinous crime than when the father is charged of having raped his own daughter. He not only delicts the law but, it is a betrayal of trust. The father is the fortress and refuge of his daughter in whom the daughter reposes trust to protect her. Charged of raping his own daughter under his refuge and fortress is worse than the gamekeeper becoming a poacher and treasury guard becoming a robber.”

In this case, the father-rapist initially took the plea of false implication which was not accepted by the Trial Court. He was convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.1,000/-. Before the High Court, he then said that his brother wanted to grab land and property and, therefore, was tutoring the victim. The High Court, however, affirmed the Trial Court’s verdict after which the Supreme Court dismissed his appeal to it.

In this case, the mother of the victim had died about 3 years before the rape. Her father took her to purchase clothes for her and on the way back, he took her to a dilapidated house and raped her. She was about thirteen years old at the time.

Hearing her shrieks, three passers-by went inside the room and separated the father from his daughter. They then took both of them to the police station where the daughter lodged the first information report against her father.

They were both sent for medical examinations on the basis of which the doctors opined that possibility of rape could not be denied and that the father was not impotent.

The case at hand shows to what bottomless pit speed of depravation and lust a person can go down. As indicated at the threshold, the custodian of the trust has betrayed the same. The father is supposed to protect the dignity and honour of his daughter. This is a fundamental facet of human life. If the protector becomes the violator, the offence assumes a greater degree of vulnerability. The sanctity of father and daughter relationship gets polluted. It becomes an unpardonable act. It is not only a loathsome sin, but also abhorrent.

The case at hand is a sad reflection on the present day society where a most platonic relationship has been soiled by the pervert and degrading act of the father. The evidence on records clinchingly nails the appellant as the offender.

The criminal law adheres in general to the principle of proportionality in prescribing liability according to the culpability of each kind of criminal conduct. It ordinarily allows some significant discretion to the Judge in arriving at a sentence in each case, presumably to permit sentences that reflect more subtle considerations of culpability that are raised by the special facts of each case.

In this case, the accused’s lustful acts have indelible scar not only physically but also emotionally on the victim. No sympathy or leniency is called for.

---

In another recent case in which the same two judges along with Justice M Sharma comprised the Bench, the Supreme Court had said, “The imposition of appropriate punishment is the manner in which the court responds to society’s cry for justice against the criminal. Justice demands that courts should impose punishment befitting the crime so that the courts reflect public abhorrence of the crime.”

In that case, the Court confirmed a death sentence which had been awarded to a man who had raped and murdered two minor girls.

The trend seems to be towards ensuring that the punishment is commensurate with the offence.