Nothing can be more heinous than a father ravishing his own child, the Delhi High Court has observed while upholding the life imprisonment awarded to a man for raping and sodomising his nine-year-old daughter.

The high court refused to set aside or modify the jail term imposed on the man by the trial court and dismissed his appeal, saying the crime was committed by father who was duty- bound to provide “unflinching protection” to his daughter.

“Further, let it not be forgotten that this is a case of rape on a girl child, only nine years old at the time of commission of the offence, by her own father.

“Nothing can be more heinous than a crime committed on the person of a child by her father, the one who is duty-bound to provide her unflinching protection from all harm,” a bench of Justices Siddharth Mridul and Mukta Gupta said in a recent order.

The bench upheld the life imprisonment awarded to the man, a resident of south west Delhi, by the trial court in February 2013 for the offences of rape and sodomy.

The trial court had said the sentence would run concurrently and the man shall not be given any clemency by the state before he spends at least 20 years in jail.

The high court referred to a Supreme Court judgement which was said it was necessary for the courts to have a sensitive approach when dealing with cases of child rape. The effect of such a crime on the mind of the child is likely to be lifelong, it had said.

A case was lodged against the man at a police station near Najafgharh in southwest Delhi on the complaint the victim’s mother alleging that one of her two daughters was raped by her husband in September 2012.

The incident came to light when the minor girl complaint of abdominal pain and was taken to a doctor by her mother. The doctor informed the woman that the child was sexually abused.

Following this, the minor had disclosed the ordeal.

The child had alleged that she was raped by her father several times at their house and he had threatened her not to disclose it to anyone.

The man had denied the allegations and claimed he was falsely implicated by his wife as he had objected to her alleged illicit relations.

The high court, however, termed the ground taken by the convict to be an afterthought and said the evidence brought on record fully established the case of the prosecution.