5 months ago
1
The Bombay High Court connected Wednesday (December 17, 2025) upheld the condemnation and condemnation of beingness imprisonment awarded to a Raigad antheral for repeatedly raping his 14-year-old daughter, observing that specified crimes “must invitation the severest condemnation” and that courts could not condone specified acts nether the guise of leniency.
A Division Bench of Justices Manish Pitale and Manjusha Deshpande dismissed the entreaty filed by Jagannath Pandurang Waghare, who had challenged the May 25, 2017, judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Mangaon, Raigad, successful Special POCSO Case of 2016. The proceedings tribunal had sentenced him to imprisonment for the remainder of his earthy beingness nether Section 376(2)(f) and (i) of the IPC and also convicted him nether Sections 5(j)(ii) and 5(l) work with Section 6 of the POCSO Act, imposing 10 years’ rigorous imprisonment (to tally concurrently).
The prosecution said Waghare, an agricultural labourer, lived with his wife, minor daughter and lad successful a one-room house. In August 2015, helium sexually assaulted his girl 4–5 times astatine nighttime portion sleeping adjacent to her. The assaults led to pregnancy, confirmed by doctors and aboriginal medically terminated at Mumbai’s Cama Hospital. The victim’s connection recorded astatine the infirmary formed the ground of the FIR.
Appellant’s counsel Pawan Mali argued that the condemnation rested heavy connected a DNA study linking him to the foetus, which should person been discarded owed to nonaccomplishment to beryllium the concatenation of custody. He cited Supreme Court rulings successful Irfan alias Bhayu Mevati vs State of MP, Prakash Nishad vs State of Maharashtra and Manoj vs State of MP, stressing that “purity of process” and introspection of each persons progressive successful illustration postulation and transport were essential. He besides claimed false implications by his woman and maternal uncle.
The State, represented by Additional Public Prosecutor (APP) Sharmila Kaushik, countered that the victim’s grounds unsocial was capable to prolong conviction. “The grounds of the prosecutrix unsocial is capable successful specified cases and corroboration is not adjacent necessary,” she argued, adding that the unfortunate was lone 14 years aged and the appellant was her father.
The Bench agreed that the prosecution had not examined important witnesses to establish the integrity of samples and had failed to enactment the DNA study to the accused nether Section 313 CrPC.
“This tribunal has nary different alternate but to wholly discard the said report,” the judges said, terming the proceedings court’s reliance on it an error.
However, the tribunal held that the victim’s testimony, corroborated by her mother, was “sterling successful quality” and capable to beryllium guilt beyond tenable doubt.
“Insistence connected existent statement of the enactment of penetration cannot beryllium held arsenic sine qua non for the tribunal to believe the lawsuit of the victim,” the judgement noted, adding that insignificant omissions did not undermine her credibility.
The Bench invoked Section 29 of the POCSO Act, which creates a presumption of guilt erstwhile foundational facts are established.
“The grounds of the insignificant unfortunate tin beryllium wholly relied upon, the presumption stood triggered and the appellant failed to rebut it adjacent connected preponderance of probabilities,” the tribunal said.
Rejecting pleas for leniency, the judges cited the Supreme Court’s observations in Bhanei Prasad vs State of Himachal Pradesh, “When a begetter who is expected to beryllium a shield, a guardian, a motivation compass, becomes the root of the astir terrible violation… the instrumentality indispensable talk successful a dependable that is resolute and uncompromising. There tin beryllium nary mitigation successful sentencing for crimes that subvert the precise conception of household arsenic a abstraction of security.”
The tribunal noted that nether Section 376(2) IPC, beingness imprisonment means incarceration for the remainder of the convict’s earthy life, leaving nary scope for applying remission guidelines. It besides referred to the 2013 and 2018 amendments to Section 376 IPC, noting that the statutory mandate is clear.
“Such heinous crime, erstwhile committed by a begetter against his ain daughter, has the inclination of destroying the basal cloth of familial beingness and trust,” the Bench observed, dismissing the entreaty and upholding the proceedings court’s bid successful its entirety.
