Court sentences man to 20-year RI for raping daughter

Pune: A special POCSO court last week sentenced a worker (42) to 20-year rigorous imprisonment for repeatedly sexually assaulting his minor daughter, holding that “the law does not permit to forgive” such offenders despite the survivor and her mother softening their stand later.Special judge S R Salunkhe held on May 16 that the survivor’s testimony remained reliable and was corroborated by her earlier statements, medical evidence and her conduct during deposition before the court. He noted that the medical report recorded the evidence of sexual assault and injuries, consistent with the survivor’s allegations.While convicting the accused, the judge said, “What the accused did was most unfortunate, causing a stigma to the sacrosanct relationship between father and daughter. He has caused irreparable damage to human relationships.”The court observed that “the informant and the victim may forgive the accused, but the law does not permit to forgive him”. The judge held that the punishment should not “completely destroy the dreams of the innocent children of the accused” and that they should retain hope of seeing their father after the completion of his sentence.According to public prosecutor Anilkumar Verma, the survivor was sexually assaulted between July 2024 and February 2025. The survivor was 13 years old then and stayed with the accused in Pune. The survivor’s mother lodged an FIR on March 1, 2025, after child welfare authorities received information regarding the girl not attending school and subsequently initiated an inquiry.The survivor’s mother, a domestic help raising four children, including the survivor, did not support the prosecution’s case later. She even denied the allegations she made in her complaint.The court held that her hostility did not demolish the prosecution’s case. It observed that she probably changed her stand because of family responsibilities and concern about the future of her children.The court also relied on the survivor’s in-camera testimony, noting that she became emotional and cried while narrating the incidents and again upon seeing the accused in court. The judge observed that her “emotions and demeanor speaks in volumes”.Rejecting the defence argument that the survivor had been tutored, the court said there was no reason why a minor girl would falsely implicate her father by making allegations of such gravity.