In a recent decision that has sparked controversy, the Karnataka High Court has reduced the prison sentence of a Muslim man from 20 years to 10 years for the rape of his minor stepdaughter. The court argued that the accused could not have been convicted under an amended penal provision that came into effect after the date of the incident.

Justice K Natarajan, a single judge bench, pointed out that the trial court in Bengaluru had found the accused, Abdul Khadar alias Rafiq, guilty of the offence under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). However, while sentencing him, the trial court applied the amended IPC Section 376(3), which prescribes a 20-year imprisonment term for repeated sexual assaults on victims aged between 16 and 20. This IPC amendment was enacted on April 21, 2018, whereas the crime committed by the accused was reported on October 13, 2015.

“It is worth to mention that the amended IPC came into force by adding Section 376(3) is only from 21.04.2018 and prior to that the provisions of 376(3) of IPC was not all in the statute. The trial court committed an error in awarding the punishment for offence punishable under Section 376(3) of IPC when the said offence was not at all in the statute as on date prior to 13.10.2015.”

The court mentioned Article 20 of the Constitution, which reads, “No one can be convicted for an act that was not an offence at the time of its commission, and no one can be given punishment greater than what was provided in the law prevalent at the time of its commission”.

The victim, a 15-year-old girl, testified that the accused, whom her mother had married after her father’s death, had sexually assaulted her whenever her mother visited Tumkuru to buy groceries. The learned amicus curiae informed that court in the case that the child had endured significant trauma due to the sexual assaults by her stepfather, who worked as an auto driver.

Additionally, the accused had reportedly threatened the girl with a knife and with the murder of both her and her mother. As a result, the child fled from the house and sought refuge at her aunt’s residence. Witnesses also testified that when they proposed the victim’s marriage, the accused objected, wanting to maintain control over her and continue the sexual abuse.

The court acknowledged that “It is a settled position of law, that no woman use to make a such a false allegation against any person that too he has committed rape if he has not really committed rape,”

The court further noted that the victim, at 15 years old, was a grown-up girl, and the accused had taken advantage of her mother’s absence in the house to sexually assault her, even threatening her with a knife.

In light of these considerations and the evidence presented, the court ruled that the prosecution had successfully proven that the accused had sexually assaulted the victim, thereby falling under Section 376(2) of the IPC and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act.