'Nothing has changed since Nirbhaya': J&K HC upholds life term of man who raped one-year-old granddaughter

Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh’s High Court recently upheld the conviction and life imprisonment of an elderly who raped his one-year-old granddaughter back in 2011. The case prompted Justices Sanjay Dhar and Rajesh Sekhri to express concern over the declining respect for women. Despite the 2012 “Nirbhaya” incident, where a woman was gang-raped and murdered by men on a moving bus in Delhi, the Court noted that there hasn’t been any improvement. “Even after more than a decade since ‘Nirbhaya’, things haven’t gotten better. Women deserve life, liberty, respect, and equality. Their dignity and honor must be inviolable. Women embody various roles and are not objects for amusement,” the Court emphasized. The judges remarked that there has been an unfortunate rise in crimes against women, particularly rape. “Regrettably, the regard for women in our nation is declining sharply. Incidents of molestation, disrespect, and rape are escalating day by day. The ethical and moral values that our Indian society once cherished have seemingly disappeared,” the Court expressed. The Court further stated that this trend tarnishes society and reflects a callous attitude towards the violation of human dignity in cases of sexual offenses. Hence, the Court stressed that when trying individuals accused of rape, courts bear a significant responsibility. Discussing the specific case, the Court commented, “It is horrifying to realize that a grandfather has indulged his twisted desires by assaulting his own one-year-old granddaughter.” The High Court was addressing an appeal by Bodh Raj, who contested his 2013 conviction under Section 376 (2) (f) of the Ranbir Penal Code, which addresses the rape of a child under 12 years old. Raj was accused of fleeing from a room where the bleeding and crying one-year-old child was discovered. A doctor’s examination confirmed tearing of the child’s hymen and recent injuries to her genital area. The doctor indicated the possibility of sexual assault, though other explanations were not ruled out. On this matter, the Court clarified that doctors cannot definitively diagnose rape. “A medical professional treating a rape survivor can only verify signs of recent sexual activity. Determining whether rape occurred is beyond their purview. That’s a decision for the judiciary,” the Court clarified. Raj argued that he was falsely implicated due to longstanding animosity with the complainant and that he had no motive for such a crime. The High Court rejected his arguments, especially as the key witness provided a credible account of the incident. In cases with direct eyewitness testimony, the importance of a motive diminishes, the Court stated. The Court also pointed out that in sexual offenses, it’s the twisted desire for sexual satisfaction and a deviant mindset that act as motives for such heinous acts, while a sane person wouldn’t even contemplate violating the modesty of a one-year-old granddaughter. Ultimately, the Court concluded that the prosecution effectively proved its case against Raj. “The actions committed by the appellant are heinous, something a normal human being wouldn’t even fathom,” the High Court concluded, dismissing the appeal.