The Sikkim High Court has confirmed the conviction of a 24-year-old man found guilty of raping his 80-year-old maternal grandmother. The division bench, comprising Justice Meenakshi Madan Rai and Justice Bhaskar Raj Pradhan, upheld the judgment of the Fast Track Sessions Court, citing robust evidence and a thorough trial process.
The appellant/accused was convicted under Sections 376(2)(f) (rape of a relative, guardian etc), 376(2)(n) (repeatedly committing rape on the same woman), and 506 (criminal intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code. The heinous crime took place while the victim was residing with her daughter, son-in-law, and their son, the convict.
The incident came to light when the victim’s daughter returned from a trip to West Bengal and found her mother missing. The elderly woman was eventually located at a neighbour’s house, where she revealed the assault. She reported that her grandson had raped her on multiple occasions and threatened her with further harm if she disclosed the abuse.
In her First Information Report (FIR), the victim detailed how the appellant would chase and touch her inappropriately, often while intoxicated. She also mentioned his previous incarceration and the threats he made to silence her. During the trial, the victim consistently reiterated her allegations, and the medical examination report supported her claims of sexual assault.
Contrarily, the defence argued that the victim’s age was misrepresented, the delay in lodging the FIR was unexplained, and the victim’s immediate neighbour, who could have been a key witness, was not called to testify. It was also pointed out that the victim’s clothing was not seized, and there were no physical injuries on her. The appellant further suggested a psychiatric evaluation of the appellant, citing his history of alcohol abuse and violence.
The court also addressed the delay in lodging the FIR, acknowledging that the victim’s reluctance to report the crime was understandable given the familial relationship. The Supreme Court has previously emphasised that delays in reporting rape cases do not necessarily undermine the prosecution’s case, particularly in sensitive situations involving close family members. The court noted that “she was too ashamed and did not tell anyone about the incident which is absolutely understandable under the said circumstances.”
The court noted the observation made by the trial court that “In this case, apart from the victim who is the grandmother of the accused, even the mother of the accused herself, has come forward to report the matter against her own son. It is thus evident that it is under sheer compulsion being subjected to rape repeatedly by her accused grandson that the mother has mustered the courage to finally approach the police.”
“The Learned Trial Court found no reason to disbelieve the victim, a senior citizen, who at her age was unlikely to make such allegations against her own grandchild unless she was left with no option,” the high court stated.
Notably, the trial court had sentenced the appellant to rigorous imprisonment for life and fined Rs 10,000 for each rape conviction, along with a two-year term and a Rs 1,000 fine for criminal intimidation. The sentences were to run concurrently.
Observing the thoroughness of the trial court’s proceedings, the High Court upheld the appellant’s conviction, affirming the gravity of the crime and the credibility of the victim’s testimony. In conclusion, the appeal was dismissed
Comments
0 comment