‘Cousin satisfied sexual urge with 11-year-old sister’: Court sentences ‘Child’ tried as ‘Adult’ to 12 years in jail

A Murshidabad Court has sentenced a ‘child in conflict in law’ (CCL) to rigorous imprisonment for 12 years for raping his 11-year-old cousin sister and neighbour u/s 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act. The court also imposed a Rs 50,000 fine upon the convict. The CCL was 17 years old when he raped his cousin sister and was tried as an adult in consonance with Sections 15/18 of the Juvenile Justice (JJ) Act.

The CCL’s counsel, Advocate Nakibuddin, denied the prosecution’s story and renounced the convict’s guilt, with a plea of innocence made before the court. The counsel contended that there was a lack of corroborative evidence in the prosecution’s case. However, Additional Sessions Judge Deepto Ghosh rejected the defence’s submissions and held that the defence could not rely solely on the lack of corroborative evidence to prove the CCL’s innocence.

The court said, based on the evidence of record, that while the CCL was the victim’s cousin brother, he did not allow the victim to enjoy the fruits of life. The court said the convict instead gratified his libido and sexual urge with his own sister, becoming the violator instead of protector of his family members.

“The evidence on record showed that the convict being himself the counsin brother and immediate neighbour, did not allow his sister, the victim girl here in, to enjoy the fruits of the life, given to her by the family, with the dream a young girl to get the love and affection, being the cynosure of her family with all attention, got ruined. The convict, rather preferred to put his sister, to test the dark side of this cruelest world, by gratifying his libido and sexual urge, while having carnal knowledge of his own sister by blood, by himself becoming the violator instead of being protector, of his family members,” the court said while sentencing the convict.

The prosecution’s case was that the minor victim and the convict were cousins and neighbours. The victim had gone to the CCL’s house at about 11 am on the fateful day and returned at about 11:45 am crying and wearing apparel drenched in blood. The CCL had committed sexual assault and brutal rape of the minor victim, and such aggravated assault caused the minor victim to bleed profusely from her private parts.

When the victim came back to the house, the victim’s mother saw the victim crying and drenched in blood and took the minor girl to the hospital. The victim, when asked, revealed that the CCL raped her and threatened her with dire consequences including killing her through strangulation if she ever disclosed the incident. Notably, the victim girl continued to bleed from her private parts even at the time when the FIR was registered. The minor girl’s mother is the complainant in this case. Thereafter, the CCL was booked u/s 376(2)(i) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) read with Section 4/6 of the POCSO Act.

The prosecution put forth various witnesses, including the minor victim herself, before the court. The prosecution also examined the minor’s mother, other cousins of the victim, the doctors and nurses who treated the minor victim and the investigating officer in the case.

However, the convict’s counsel put forth a complete denial. Notably, the defence did not adduce independent witnesses, however, attacked the prosecution’s case on the basis of technicalities and non-examination of certain witnesses by the prosecution. The defence further attacked the prosecution, arguing that the minor victim’s statement before the court was not credible. The court rejected the defence’s arguments attacking the prosecution on technicalities and held that the minor’s statements corroborated her version of the event, and thus, there is so scope for doubt.

On the issue of non-examination of witnesses, the court said that it is the prerogative and discretion of the prosecutor as to what witnesses must be called to substantiate its case and that the court would not interfere with the same and dictate the exercise of such discretion.

The defence had attacked the prosecution’s case that it did not adduce the CCL’s brother Rubel Sk or other witnesses such as Ersad Sk, Alim Sk and Alim Sk’s family members who resided in the vicinity. The court rejected the contention and said that while these people resided in the vicinity, the failure to adduce them as witnesses before the court did not erode the prosecution’s case. Furthermore, the court noted that the defence did not adduce these persons to disprove the prosecution’s case either.

“Here I am not unmindful of the fact that the instant case pertains to allegation of ravishment of a minor girl who turned up before the Court to testify. She as narrated above is the only eyewitness to the incident. She is also a child witness. Considering her tender age and perception of time and thing her testimony can be said to have remained free from blemish. Flabbergasting blisters, from the side of the defence, to erode credibility of the version of a child witness, cannot wither away her otherwise trustworthy rendition of events,” the court said, while dismissing the defence’s contentions attacking the credibility of victim’s statements.

While delivering the sentence upon the convict, the court observed that the victim girl was made a subject of lust by her own brother, when the “innocent poor child” was unaware of the “catastrophe” which had befallen her.

“I cannot overlook the pain and suffering of the victim, while she was humiliated and brutally treated in the hands of the convict/ CCL, being her own blood-her family member/ cousin brother, ravished to such an extent that she had to undergo reparment surgery in her private part upon admission in the sub- divisdional hospital, for seven days, where she had to be administered with three bottles of blood, to compensate blood loss, due to haemorrage from her private part which continued through out the week, inspite of repeated medical intervention, post surgery as well,” the court observed.

Based on the evidence on record, the court sentenced the convict to rigorous imprisonment for 12 years and imposed a Rs 50,000 fine upon him. The court further said that if the CCL fails to pay the fine, then he shall suffer further rigorous imprisonment for one year.

The court concluded, “that the convict CCL is sentenced to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for twelve (12) years and to pay fine of Rs.50,000/-,(Rupees fifty Thousand) in default of payment of fine, to suffer further Rigorous Imprisonment for one (01) year, for commission of the offence punishable under Section 6 of the POCSO Act.”