Minor’s rape: no court relief for 51-year-old

“Considering the gravity of the offence, the appellant is not entitled for relief as is prayed in the application. The application stands rejected,” the court observed in a recent order.

Prasad was held guilty by a trial court in March last year on charges of sexually assaulting his 12-year-old help, brought by him from Jharkhand in January 1991 to do domestic chores in his home in Mumbai.

The girl was kept properly for a few months before Prasad started assaulting her repeatedly despite her protests. The victim’s complaints to his wife Krishna Lata brought more troubles instead of any relief.

Lata blamed her for the whole thing and started physically harassing her by inflicting cuts on her body with a blade. She also suffered a fracture in her right hand after being hit by a heavy object.

When the girl came back to her native place in November 1993, she narrated the tale of her trauma to her mother and other relatives and an FIR was subsequently registered.

The case was transferred from Mumbai to Delhi on the plea of the National Human Rights Commission, which pleaded that the victim would not get justice there.

Pronouncing the verdict, the trial court judge had said: “Sexual violence, apart from being a dehumanising act, is an unlawful intrusion on the right of privacy and sanctity of a female. It is a serious blow to her supreme honour and offends her self-esteem and dignity. It degrades and humiliates the victim and where the victim is a helpless innocent child or a minor, it leaves behind a traumatic experience.”

“A rapist not only causes physical injuries but more indelibly leaves a scar on the most cherished possession of a woman, i.e. her dignity, honour, reputation and not the least her chastity,” the court had observed while handing down ten years each of rigorous imprisonment to the couple under respective penal provisions.

Prasad and his wife then filed an appeal with the High Court against their conviction. The dismissal of Prasad’s application came after Justice Birbal noted that not only did the facts of the case point to the gravity of the offence but also that Lata had already been released on interim bail for taking care of his mother.

The court also found substance in the contention of the counsel for the state that the possibility of his fleeing from justice could not be ruled out if he was released on bail.