When a Father was ‘Falsely Implicated’ on the Charge of ‘Raping’ his ‘Own Daughter’

That the relation between a daughter and her father is sacrosanct needs no reiteration. Unfortunately, when the society reaches an extreme level of depravity, even this relation is not left from being wrongly used. It is very difficult to think that a mother, in order to satisfy her personal wants, can falsely implicate her ex-husband on the charge of raping ‘their’ own daughter. But, this was what happened in a case which has recently been decided by the Delhi High Court (“High Court”). In Atendar Yadav v. State Govt of NCT of Delhi [judgment dated 29^th October, 2013], the appellant, Atendar Yadav, had challenged the order of trial court in which he was convicted him for committing an offence under section 376(2)(f) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (“IPC”). The appellant was convicted by the trail court on charge of raping of no one else but his own daughter.

In May, 2007, it so happened that a complaint was filed against the appellant on the charge that he had raped his daughter, the Prosecutrix, in November and December 2006. The complaint was made after the mother of the Prosecutrix, Geeta Anand, became aware of the incident. While the story of the prosecution was appreciated by the trial court, the High Court was not very much convinced with the same. In fact, the High Court considered this to be a case of false implication. Before I go into the crux of the case, let me highlight its factual background.

Due to poor marital relations between them, Geeta Anand and the appellant had agreed to divorce through mutual consent in February 2007. While the custody of children (Prosecutrix and her younger brother) was given to the appellant, Geeta was granted visitation rights. Prior to the divorce, both Geeta Anand and the appellant had filed several cases against each other (Maintenance, Kidnapping, Domestic Violence etc.). Immediately after the divorce, appellant married another woman. When Geeta Anand became aware of this fact, she was baffled.  She was also not satisfied when, under the settlement, she had agreed to withdraw the all the cases in return of Rs. 1 Lac.

According to Geeta Anand, she was informed by the Prosecutrix of the incident when she had gone to meet the latter at the house of appellant’s parents. Highlighting the pervert behaviour of the appellant, she opined as to how he used to watch blue movies at home. In her testimony before the court, Geeta Anand stated that she became aware of the menstruation period of the Prosecutrix and, according to her, the same started after the rape. On knowing this, she was perplexed as by that time her daughter was only 9 years old. However, in her cross-examination, she had admitted to have told the appellant to take care of the Prosecutrix when she is on periods in September 2006. This was only one of the contradictory evidences given by her.

"Extra-Marital Relationship" may not amount to "Cruelty" under Section 498A, Indian Penal Code, 1860

In an important case (Pinakin Mahipatray Rawal v. State of Gujarat) where the question whether ‘extra-marital relationship’ could be considered as ‘cruelty’ under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (“Penal Code”) had arisen, the Supreme Court of India (“Supreme Court”) has answered the question in negative. The case involved a situation where the deceased, wife of Accused-1 (“A-1”), had committed suicide following an alleged extra-marital relationship between A-1 and his colleague, Accused 2 (“A-2”). On being tired by the lower court, A-1 was convicted under Section 498A and 306 of the Penal Code. While A-2 and A-3 (‘Mother of A-1”) were acquitted of various alleged offences, A-1 was also acquitted of offence under Section 304B.

(Image Source: Storyline Blog)

Section 498A provides for the offence of cruelty by the husband or his relatives and Section 306 of the Penal Code provides for the offence of ‘Abetment of Suicide’. It was the case of the prosecution that the deceased had taken the step of committing suicide because of the alleged extra-marital relationship between A-1 and A-2. This relationship, according to the prosecution, had amounted to cruelty under Section 498A of the Penal Code. Though there was no evidence of any physical harm to the deceased, the prosecution rested its case on the basis of mental cruelty, as can be derived from explanation to Section 498A. With respect to the abetment of suicide, prosecution had relied on Section 113A of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (“Evidence Act”) where a presumption can be made that the husband or his relatives has abetted the suicide if the same takes place within 7 years of marriage.