High Court upholds sentences against man convicted of sexual assault of stepdaughter

High Court has ruled in favor of upholding two consecutive 15-year sentences against a man convicted by a lower court for sexual assault of a young girl in Southern Maldives.

The convict in question has been found guilty of repeated sexual assault of his stepdaughter from 2011 to 2014.

He was found guilty on two charges of sexual assault and sentenced to two consecutive 15-year prison sentences by the Criminal Court in 2018.

The sentences were later appealed by the man with the High Court.

The High Court ruled in favor of upholding one of the sentences on July 14, and issued a second ruling in favor of upholding the remaining sentence last Sunday, July 21.

The High Court’s ruling reads that every act of touching a minor with the intention of carrying out a sexual act will be considered a separate crime. And that the repeat of such an action on the same victim may also be considered separate crimes and therefore charged separately.

It also says that though the first conviction against an appellant may be used as basis to establish a history of child sex offense, witness testimony by the prosecution to establish a history of child sex offenses was used incorrectly during the original trial at the lower court as it was unclear which of the two charges he was convicted of first.

The High Court took note that the testimony provided by the victim to investigators corroborate with the finding of doctors during their medical examination of the victim. And that findings by the social worker who interviewed the victim proved the trauma suffered by the victim was a result of sexual assault.

The court also established testimony of the victim and her sister as strong evidence to support the charges against the appellant.

The Special Provisions Act to Deal with Child Sex Abuse Offenders requires only five out of the 12 types of evidence stated under Article 47 of the Act to prove the guilt of a defendant charged with committing a sex crime against a child if he/she holds a position of authority over the victim.

The High Court found that though the State prosecution failed to obtain the required number of evidence against the man, the prosecution presented enough evidence to prove guilt under the standard for prove a criminal offense.

The three High Court judges who presided over the appeal proceedings concurred that there was enough irrefutable evidence as prescribed under Article 51 (a) of the Constitution to find the appellant guilty of the crime.

High Court ruled to uphold the original sentence issued by Criminal Court with the unanimous consensus of all three judges who presided over the proceedings.