SC upholds rape conviction, says parental abuse shatters family trust

The court said entertaining a plea for leniency in a case of this nature would not merely be misplaced, it would constitute a betrayal of the court's own constitutional duty to protect the vulnerable

Observing incestuous sexual violence by a parent "tears through" the foundational fabric of familial trust, the Supreme Court has upheld a man's punishment for raping his minor daughter.

A bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and Sandeep Kumar called the dignity of women "non-negotiable" while asking the legal system not to permit repeated intrusion into that dignity under the "guise of misplaced sympathy" or purported "procedural fairness".

Justice, the August 4 order said, must not be limited to conviction and must include restitution.

The top court further directed Rs 10.50 lakh to be paid to the survivor as compensation under the state of Himachal Pradesh.

"Incestuous sexual violence committed by a parent is a distinct category of offence that tears through the foundational fabric of familial trust and must invite the severest condemnation in both language and sentence. The home, which should be a sanctuary, cannot be permitted to become a site of unspeakable trauma, and the courts must send a clear signal that such offences will be met with an equally unsparing judicial response," the order read.

The apex court said entertaining a plea for leniency in a case of this nature would not merely be misplaced, it would constitute a betrayal of the court's own constitutional duty to protect the vulnerable.

"When a child is forced to suffer at the hands of her own father, the law must speak in a voice that is resolute and uncompromising. There can be no mitigation in sentencing for crimes that subvert the very notion of family as a space of security," the bench said.

The top court was acting on the appeal of the man against a Himachal Pradesh High Court decision upholding his conviction and sentence under Section 6 (sexual assault) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and Section 506 (criminal intimidation) of IPC.

The court said such offences deserve severest condemnation and deterrent punishment.

To pardon such depravity under any guise would be a travesty of justice and a betrayal of the child protection mandate embedded in our constitutional and statutory framework, the verdict added.

The bench went on to quote Manusmriti, as saying, Yatra naryastu pujyante ramante tatra devata, yatraitaastu na pujyante sarvastatra aphala kriya (where women are honoured, divinity flourishes and where they are dishonoured, all acts become fruitless)."  The top court said this verse reflects not merely a cultural principle but a constitutional vision.

The court rejected the man's prayer for interim bail saying, "Our judicial conscience does not permit casual indulgence in a prayer for interim relief of bail where the conviction has been rendered."  The bench said entertaining petition would mean betrayal of the constitutional promise made to every child in the country.

"It would be a judicial insult to the sanctity of womanhood and a blow to every mother who teaches her child to believe in justice."  The order continued, "When a father who is expected to be a shield, a guardian, a moral compass, becomes the source of the most severe violation of a child's bodily integrity and dignity, the betrayal is not only personal but institutional. The law does not, and cannot, condone such acts under the guise of rehabilitation or reform.