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 29th
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.
