"Shiver runs down the spine": this sentiment echoed across the courtroom and indeed, the nation. The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court recently delivered a verdict that was both necessary and, for many, deeply unsettling. The court upheld the conviction and the accompanying sentence for a grandfather who committed the unimaginable crime of raping his 1-year-old granddaughter.

It's disheartening to realize that even after over a decade since the tragic "Nirbhaya" case, the safety of women and girls remains a pressing concern. "Nothing has improved even after more than a decade of 'Nirbhaya'. Women also have the right to life and liberty. They also have the right to be respected and treated as equal citizens. Their honour and dignity cannot be touched or violated,” the court passionately reiterated.

This heart-wrenching case came to light in the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court, where the Division Bench, comprising of Hon'ble Justices Sanjay Dhar and Rajesh Sekhri, took a firm stance. They upheld the judgment given by the Trial Court, which had found the accused-appellant guilty of an offence under Section 376(2)(f) of the Ranbir Penal Code, 1989. The sentence? Rigorous life imprisonment. The gravity of the crime, as described by the Bench, showcased sheer brutality, a reflection of the darkest side of humanity.

"Shiver runs down the spine to know that a maternal grandfather has gratified his animated passion and sexual lust by ravishing his one-year-old granddaughter. We do not find any mitigating or extenuating circumstance in the present case, which could dilute the rigor of penal consequences which the appellant is bound to bear. It is a case, where the fence itself has eaten the crop,” they observed, painting a vivid, haunting image of betrayal.

To delve into the background of this horrifying case, it was in 2011 when the father of the innocent victim, deeply aggrieved, lodged a formal complaint against the accused-appellant for violating his 1-year-old daughter. It's heart-wrenching to think that the child used to spend a majority of her time with this man, her maternal grandfather. She trusted him. Her parents trusted him. On the fateful day, he took the little girl to his home, situated not far away. A short while later, heart-wrenching cries of the baby echoed from his residence. A prosecution witness, alarmed by the distressing sounds, rushed to the room of the accused. There, they were met with a sight that would haunt them forever: the accused was found lying naked beside the victim. He managed to flee the scene momentarily, leaving behind the traumatized child, found lying on the bed, bleeding. Based on these horrifying circumstances and evidence, it was deduced by the prosecution that the accused was the perpetrator who had violated the child victim.

During the comprehensive investigation process, an aspect of the accused's personal life became prominently clear: his wife had made the difficult decision to leave him, marking him with a solitude that lasted for almost a decade. Over these years, the accused seemed to find some comfort and companionship in playing with the young child, making their bond all the more concerning to outsiders. On the day of the grievous incident, the child's parents, bound by their daily commitments, unknowingly entrusted their precious daughter into the hands of the accused, believing in the sanctity of family trust.

Soon after the heart-wrenching incident came to light, the law enforcement machinery swiftly sprang into action, leading to the arrest of the accused. The overwhelming evidence pointing towards his involvement made it abundantly clear that this was not an act of random violence. With the inquiry's findings solidifying the case against him, the investigation reached its conclusive phase, resulting in the submission of the final report as prescribed under Section 173 of the CrPC. Following this, the accused faced charges under the daunting Section 376 RPC. Despite the weight of evidence stacked against him, he claimed innocence in the court of law. In response to his plea, the Trial Court took the prudent step of delving deeper into the layers of the prosecution's evidence. After an exhaustive review of the evidence, coupled with the testimonies of the witnesses, the court reached a verdict that reflected the gravity of the crime. The accused was found guilty and was met with a stern sentence of life imprisonment.

Not surprisingly, the weighty verdict of the Trial Court was met with resistance from the accused. Hoping for a change in his fate, he decided to knock on the doors of the higher judiciary. With an appeal filed, the case found its way to the High Court, setting the stage for another round of intense legal scrutiny.

Deliberations of the Court

In the solemn environment of the High Court, every statement and piece of evidence was examined with a fine-toothed comb. The justices were particularly attentive to the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses. In any legal proceedings, the consistency of testimonies is paramount as it often holds the key to discerning truth from falsehood. The justices, after a deep dive into the presented narratives, confirmed that the testimonies were in sync, especially on those pivotal elements central to the incident. This unanimity in accounts ensured that the prosecution's presentation was devoid of significant contradictions that might challenge its authenticity.

An indispensable piece of evidence came in the form of a medical testimony. The doctor, who had the distressing duty of examining the victim post the traumatic event, shared her findings with the court. She detailed how in March 2012, a mere toddler, all of one year old, was brought to her for medical examination. The physical scars that she observed on the child painted a heart-wrenching tale of abuse. The young victim's hymen had been torn and the evidence of fresh injuries on her delicate parts was unmissable. But the doctor's testimony didn't stop at just presenting these grim findings. She proceeded to clarify that, given the visible injuries, it was unmistakably a case of sexual abuse. During the cross-examination, the doctor took pains to elaborate her point, stating unequivocally that the observed injuries were characteristic of penetration or at the very least, a serious attempt. Furthermore, she mentioned that such invasive actions might often be accompanied by the discharge from the offender.

The testimony provided by the medical professional was both detailed and unequivocal. She did not merely present her findings in a straightforward manner but delved deep into the implications of those observations. Asserting with clarity, she highlighted that the evidence of abuse was irrefutable. The injuries that were identified on the young victim weren't just indicative of harm; they screamed of an intentional violation.

During the cross-examination, her insights became even more essential. She articulated that the specific injuries found on the victim weren't just minor hints; they bore the unmistakable marks of penetration or, at the very least, a concrete attempt at rape. It wasn't a mere suggestion; it was a powerful statement grounded in medical expertise and years of experience.

Furthermore, she also emphasized another disturbing detail. With such acts of penetration, there is an alarming possibility that the perpetrator might leave behind physical traces — a discharge — as evidence of the crime. This, she explained, wasn't a mere hypothesis but a reality rooted in the nature of such heinous acts.

Her testimony, layered with medical precision and empathy, served as a compelling piece of evidence. It went beyond just diagnosing injuries; it connected the dots, offering a comprehensive picture of the assault, strengthening the case against the accused.

Unshakeable Witness Testimony Meets Medical Corroboration

The Court, while sifting through the presented evidence and testimonies, took careful note of the defense's inability to cast any doubt on the authenticity of the young child witness, who was paramount in the prosecution's case. This young individual, despite the emotional trauma and the weight of the situation, became a beacon of truth in the courtroom. The critical observations made by this "star prosecution witness" stood undeterred, even under the intense scrutiny of cross-examination. What added even more weight to this unwavering testimony was its affirmation by a medical expert. It wasn't just a spoken word against the accused; it was medically validated.

In the course of the proceedings, the Court referred to the renowned "Modi’s Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology," a text that sheds light on the nuances of medical examinations in cases of rape. It elucidates that a medical professional isn't in the position to declare a rape, but can confirm evidence of recent sexual activity. A poignant distinction was made clear - while rape is a verdict that's made judicially, the signs of a recent sexual violation can be determined medically. The Court emphasized that the medical professional had irrevocably established evidence of penetration on the young victim. This evidence was so compelling that even if traces of semen were not found, it didn't lessen the gravity of the crime or aid the defendant's cause.

Adding another layer of clarity, the Court highlighted that searching for a motive, particularly in a case so perverse, becomes almost redundant. Delving into the psyche behind such a crime, the Court underscored that, more often than not, it's an individual's twisted desires and distorted mentality that drive them to commit such acts of sheer brutality. Who, in their right mind, would even contemplate violating a child's sanctity, especially when the victim was their own kin? The circumstances in question painted a horrifying picture, but they pointed unwaveringly to one perpetrator – the appellant.

Further, the Court took a moment to address the investigation itself. While no investigation is perfect and there may be lapses, these lapses become inconsequential when the eye-witness testimonies are robust, credible, and resonate with truth. It was made abundantly clear that an accused cannot hide behind procedural hiccups when the witness accounts are as solid and corroborated as they were in this case.

The Court's Conclusive Remarks on a Heinous Crime

In delivering its judgment, the Court unequivocally stated that the accused-appellant had not successfully identified any flaws or irregularities in the judgment provided by the Trial Court. It stressed the inherent nature of sexual offenses, which, by their very nature, tend to occur clandestinely, making it exceptionally challenging to find direct eyewitnesses. However, the present case was atypical. The testimony of the "star prosecution witness," even if not bearing witness to the exact act of violation, undeniably provided a compelling narrative that all but identified the accused-appellant as the sole perpetrator of this monstrous act upon his young granddaughter.

The heinous nature of the crime was underscored by the Court. They stated, "The crime perpetrated by the appellant is one of such shocking nature that an average person cannot even fathom it. Consequently, we find no fault or inconsistencies in the original judgment of conviction."

The Court's observations took on a somber tone, lamenting the disturbingly persistent issue of crimes against women. Drawing parallels with the "Nirbhaya" incident, which even after a decade has failed to usher in substantial societal changes, the Court emphasized the inherent rights of women – the rights to life, liberty, respect, and equality. Women should never be reduced to mere objects, subjected to the whims and cruelties of others. The rising trend of crimes against women, particularly rape, is not only a concern but a stain on societal values.

Further emphasizing their perspective, the Court opined that such heinous acts were a cruel reminder of societal indifference to the gross violation of women's dignity and rights. It was a stark reminder that Courts bear an enormous responsibility when presiding over rape trials, a duty to not just the victim but to society at large.

[Source Citation: Bodh Raj v. State of Jammu and Kashmir; CRA No. 50/2013, decided on 25-07-2023]