The main legal point established in the judgment is the need for a comprehensive scheme to address the needs of the victims of crime, emphasizing the trustworthiness and reliability of the victim's testimony.

S. Muralidhar, J.

Foreword

1. There are cases that shock the judicial conscience. This is one. In our country studies have shown that a large number of instances of rape are by close family members. The victim silently suffers the ordeal for years on end. This is one such case of incestuous rape. The Appellant here has been held guilty by the trial Court of repeatedly raping his step-daughter over a period of eight years. The victim picked up courage to break her silence and go to the police on 23rd June 2015. By then she had given birth to two children, aged 6 and 3 years at the time. DNA tests have confirmed that the Appellant is their biological father.

2. By this judgment this Court affirms the judgment of the trial Court. This Court draws attention to the urgent need for a comprehensive scheme, preferably legislative, to address the needs of the victims of crime, which in this case includes not only the prosecutrix, but her children and the wife and children of the Appellant. Complete justice requires redressing the victim’s suffering even while punishing the criminal.

This appeal

3. The challenge in this appeal is to the impugned judgement dated 10th August 2016 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ)/Special Fast Track Court, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi was passed in Session Case No. 9243 of 2015 arising out of FIR No. 916 of 2015 registered at Police Station (PS) Vasant Vihar. The Appellant has been convicted of the offences under Section 376 (2) (f) IPC (rape committed by a close relative) and Section 376 (2) (n) IPC (repeated commission of rape) and Section 506 IPC (criminal intimidation). This appeal also challenges the order on sentence dated 17th August 2016 whereby he was sentenced to undergo life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 10,000, and in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment (‘RI’) for six months for each of the offences under Sections 376 (2) (n) and 376 (2) (f) IPC; and for the offence under Section 506 IPC to undergo RI for one year with a fine of Rs. 5,000, and in default of payment of fine, to undergo RI for three months. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently. 50% of the fine amount was directed to be paid to the prosecutrix as compensation.

Background

4. The background facts are that Kamala (PW-2), the mother of the prosecutrix (PW-1), was earlier married to one Babu Lal and was living in Dehradun. From that marriage PW-1 and her brother Deepak (PW-3) were born. However, after the birth of PW-3, Babu Lal left home and did not return. After waiting for some time, PW-2 moved out and started living with her two children in another tenanted portion in Dehradun where she met the Appellant. According to PW-2, she and the Appellant then got married. Thereafter, she and the two children, PWs 1 and 3, started residing with the Appellant at his village Guni in District Tehri Gadhwal in Uttarakhand.

5. The Appellant, PW-2 and the two children shifted to Delhi and first lived in a rented portion in Rangpuri. PW-1 (the prosecutrix) was around 12 to 13 years old at this time. After a while they shifted to Shanker Vihar, Delhi again in another rented house. There PW-2 started working in the ‘kothis’ (bungalows) which kept her away from home mostly throughout the day, from 5 am in the morning till even past midnight or 1 am on the following day.

6. Five more children, three daughters and two sons, were born to PW-2 and the Appellant. All of them i.e., their five children and the two children from the earlier marriage of PW-2 with Babu Lal were initially living together. The Appellant admittedly turned Deepak (PW-3) out of the house when he was only around 13 years old. Since then PW-3 had been residing separately in Delhi.

The incidents in question

7. It appears that from about 8 years prior to the date of the complaint made by her on 23rd June 2015, the Appellant began raping PW-1. During this time PW-1 did not know that the Appellant was not her biological father. The A