The Hindu : National : Supreme Court declines to review rape convict’s life imprisonment

Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Tuesday, Feb 26, 2008
ePaper | Mobile/PDA Version

National

National

Supreme Court declines to review rape convict’s life imprisonment

Legal Correspondent

His daughter says she was induced by her mother to give false complaint

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday declined to review its order imposing life imprisonment on a 77-year-old man for raping his minor daughter.

The review was sought to be based on an affidavit from his daughter that she was induced by her mother to give a false complaint against the father and that he was innocent.

A Bench of Justices H.K. Sema and P.P. Naolekar, in its judgment on November 17, 2005, found Asha Ram of Shimla in Himachal Pradesh guilty of raping his daughter on August 23/24, 1988.

The trial court convicted and sentenced him to five-year imprisonment and slapped a fine of Rs. 1,000. On appeal, the Himachal Pradesh High Court acquitted him of all charges.

The State preferred an appeal against the acquittal.

The Supreme Court, while restoring the trial court’s conviction, enhanced the punishment to life imprisonment and imposed a fine of Rs. 25,000.

Convict’s claim

Seeking a review of the judgment, Asha Ram submitted that his daughter Seema, who was only 14 years at the time of the alleged incident, had given the statement against him at the behest of his estranged wife with the connivance of the police.

Senior counsel K. Radhakrishnan submitted that there had been miscarriage of justice in this case as the petitioner’s daughter had filed an affidavit stating that her father was innocent and that she was tutored by her mother to give false evidence.

He said the court could review a judgment if there was a mistake of fact.

“Statement accepted”

Mr. Justice Sema told counsel: “Don’t say there is miscarriage of justice. The trial court had convicted the petitioner after examining the victim’s statement. This court also re-examined the evidence and accepted her statement. We cannot re-appreciate the evidence.”

Mr. Justice Naolekar told counsel that “either the girl’s statement before the Sessions Court is false or the affidavit filed here is false. Merely by filing an affidavit [that her father is innocent] you can’t say that it is the truth.”

The Bench said: “This court passed the order on November 17, 2005 and the affidavit was filed on November 22. We are of the view that the statement of the prosecutrix appears to be an attempt to bale out her father from undergoing life imprisonment.”

Order to Sessions Judge

Pointing out that the filing of an affidavit by the girl after the judgment had far-reaching legal consequences, the Bench directed the Sessions Judge, Shimla, to initiate proceedings against her under Sections 191, 192 and 193 (for fabricating and giving false evidence) of the Indian Penal Code and pass appropriate order.

Printer friendly page
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

National