The accused had filed an appeal challenging his conviction for molesting his six-year-old step-daughter
The Delhi High Court on Tuesday dismissed an appeal by an accused against his conviction by a court here for sexually assaulting his step-daughter, saying “there is no infirmity in the judgment delivered by the Additional Sessions Judge holding the appellant guilty of committing offences under various Sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Juvenile Justice Act”.
The trial court had convicted the appellant, Jitender, under Sections 376 (rape), 327 (voluntarily causing hurt), 343 (wrongfully confining for three or more days) of IPC and Section 23 (punishment for cruelty to child) of the Juvenile Justice Act.
The charges against the appellant were that he had locked his six-year-old step-daughter in a room, sexually assaulted her and when she resisted his misconduct he beat her up.
The Nangloi police in West Delhi had registered the case against the appellant in 2002 following recovery of the victim from a locked room and after getting her medically examined.
In her statement recorded under Section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the victim had said that when her mother went out for work, her step father would tie a piece of cloth around her eyes and then sexually assault her.
The appellant in his defence submitted that his wife had implicated him as she was in the habit of blackmailing people for money.
But the Court dismissed his argument.
“A perusal of the cross-examination of the victim goes to say that nothing material has been brought out which may falsify her version. Rather the witness has very categorically stated that she is not making a statement under instructions of her mother as was suggested by the accused. She also denied the suggestion that her mother used to extort money,’’ Justice M.C. Garg of the Court said in his judgment.
“The appellant in his statement in the trial court has not been able to give any satisfactory explanation as to why the prosecution witnesses deposed against him and also not been able to show that he has been falsely implicated in the case,’’ Justice Garg further stated.