A 46-YEAR-OLD man was sentenced to 14 years in jail for raping his minor niece with the court observing that although the DNA test favoured the accused, the girl’s testimony showed that she was sexually assaulted repeatedly.
According to the case, the incident happened in April 2016 when her paternal grandparents sent the 16-year-old girl from Ahmedabad to her uncle’s home in Mumbai for household work and sightseeing. The girl was with her grandparents after her mother drowned in a river and her father remarried.
In Mumbai, the uncle was staying with his wife and children, however, a few days later, when his wife went to Ahmedabad, he raped the minor. The girl told the court that the accused had threatened to harm her if she revealed about it to anyone.
When the accused’s wife returned after 15-20 days, the girl told her about the abuse, which was dismissed by the aunt saying her husband could not have committed such an act. Later he repeatedly assaulted the minor for months whenever she was alone at home or when everyone else was sleeping.
After the victim returned to her grandparents’ home in November 2016, she informed her maternal aunt about the assault. A medical examination revealed that the girl was pregnant, following which an FIR was filed by the local police, which transferred the probe to the Mumbai police.
The accused claimed that he was falsely implicated as the DNA of the boy born to the minor did not match his DNA, ruling out that he was the biological father.
“No doubt the DNA report… excludes the accused from being the biological father of the said baby. That however, in my opinion, cannot automatically be said to be sufficient to absolve the accused from the charges levelled against him…,” the court said.
It relied on judgments of the Bombay High Court and the Supreme Court stating that while a positive result of the DNA test would constitute clinching evidence against an accused, if the result is negative, other evidence is still to be considered. The court relied on the testimony of the girl stating that she had remained steadfast on it.
While the accused questioned why she had not raised an alarm alerting the neighbours, the court considered that the home was near railway tracks that could have drowned the noise.
The court found the accused guilty of rape and under relevant sections of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act.
