Supreme Court Upholds Father’s POCSO Conviction And Life Sentence | Says Incestuous Sexual Violence By Parent Warrants Severest Punishment
Kiran Raj
The Supreme Court of India Division Bench of Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Sandeep Mehta upheld the conviction and life sentence awarded to the accused for repeated aggravated penetrative sexual assault against his minor daughter. The Court dismissed the special leave petition challenging the High Court’s affirmation of the conviction and imposed penalty. Additionally, the Court invoked its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to direct the State of Himachal Pradesh to pay Rs.10.5 lakh as victim compensation under the NALSA scheme, including a fixed deposit of Rs.7 lakh for five years. The apex court held that the nature of the crime and the constitutional duty to uphold justice, dignity, and restitution necessitated denial of bail and warranted affirming the conviction along with enhanced victim compensation.
The present proceedings originated from a challenge to the judgment dated 03.07.2024 passed by the High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla in Criminal Appeal No. 562 of 2019. The High Court had affirmed the judgment of the Trial Court convicting the petitioner under Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act) and Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner had been sentenced to life imprisonment and fine.
The petitioner, father of the minor victim, was found guilty of committing repeated aggravated penetrative sexual assault on his ten-year-old daughter. The assaults were perpetrated in the confines of the family home and were described by the Court as "not isolated incidents but sustained, deliberate assaults within the safety of the home, a place where every child expects protection."
The prosecution's case was primarily based on the testimony of the victim (PW3), supported by her elder sister (PW2), medical and forensic evidence including a DNA report, and corroborative documentary records. The Trial Court conducted a detailed evaluation of the evidence and rendered a conviction. The High Court subsequently upheld this conviction, finding no legal infirmity.
The defense contended that the petitioner had been falsely implicated due to strained domestic relationships and objections to the romantic alliances of his daughters. However, the Court rejected this claim, stating that "no daughter, however aggrieved, would fabricate charges of this magnitude against her own father merely to escape household discipline."
The Supreme Court recorded that "the jurisprudence under the POCSO Act has evolved as a bulwark against the predatory crimes targeting the innocence of childhood." Citing Section 29 of the Act, which presumes guilt once foundational facts are proven, the Court found that this statutory presumption remained unrebutted in the present case.
The Court held that "the victim’s testimony was unwavering, medically corroborated, and free from embellishment. Her disclosure, though delayed, was truthful and borne out of perennial trauma and threats she has undergone." It further observed that "the testimony of a child victim, if found credible and trustworthy, requires no corroboration."
Regarding the defense's argument of false implication due to familial discord, the Court noted: "The argument... is completely hollow. No daughter, however aggrieved, would fabricate charges of this magnitude against her own father."
The Court discussed the broader implications of such offences, noting: "The trauma suffered by the victim is lifelong. The scars are not merely physical but psychological, cutting across every fibre of trust, safety, and dignity."
The judgment repeatedly stated the gravity of betrayal when committed by a parent: "When the perpetrator is none other than the father, the natural guardian, the crime assumes a demonic character." It stated further that "to pardon such depravity under any guise would be a travesty of justice and a betrayal of the child protection mandate embedded in our constitutional and statutory framework."
Quoting ancient Indian scripture, the Bench cited: "Yatra nāryastu pūjyante ramante tatra devatāḥ, yatraitaastu na pūjyante sarvāstatra aphalāḥ kriyāḥ."
Which was translated as: "Where women are honoured, divinity flourishes; and where they are dishonoured, all acts become fruitless." The Court remarked that this reflected not only a cultural ethos but a constitutional vision.
On the issue of bail, the Court stated that "our judicial conscience does not permit casual indulgence in a prayer for interim relief of bail where the conviction has been rendered after full-fledged trial, affirmed in appeal, and the testimony of the victim is clear, cogent, and duly corroborated." The Court clarified that "in serious offences under the POCSO Act, particularly those involving familial betrayal of trust, relief cannot be granted as a matter of routine."
The Court declared that "entertaining of the present petition or remotely considering the grant of bail... would not merely undermine the majesty of the law, it would amount to a betrayal of the constitutional promise made to every child of this country." The judges added that it would be "a judicial insult to the sanctity of womanhood and a blow to every mother who teaches her child to believe in justice."
The Court characterised incestuous violence as a distinct legal category: "The betrayal is not only personal but institutional. The law does not, and cannot, condone such acts under the guise of rehabilitation or reform." Further, "the home, which should be a sanctuary, cannot be permitted to become a site of unspeakable trauma... such offences will be met with an equally unsparing judicial response."
It reiterated that leniency was not appropriate: "To entertain a plea for leniency in a case of this nature would not merely be misplaced, it would constitute a betrayal of the Court’s own constitutional duty to protect the vulnerable."
The Supreme Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition in limine and upheld the concurrent findings of the Trial Court and High Court regarding the petitioner’s guilt and sentencing. It observed: "We find no infirmity or perversity in the concurrent findings of the Courts below, the conviction and sentence awarded by the courts below are found to be just, lawful and necessary."
In exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution, the Court invoked the National Legal Services Authority's "Compensation Scheme for Women Victims/Survivors of Sexual Assault/Other Crimes, 2018" and directed enhanced compensation.
The Court held: "Having regard to the age of the victim at the time of the offence, the sustained nature of the abuse, and the constitutional obligation to provide meaningful redress, we direct that a sum of Rs.10,50,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs and Fifty Thousand only) be paid to the victim as compensation as per the Scheme by the State of Himachal Pradesh in the peculiar facts of the case."
It further directed that "a sum of Rs.7,00,000/- (Rupees Seven Lakhs Only) be kept in a fixed deposit in any nationalised bank for a period of 5 years in the name of the victim and she would be entitled to withdraw the quarterly interest."
The remaining "Rs.3,50,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs and Fifty Thousand Only) shall be paid to her by transferring the said amount to her account, the details of which shall be furnished by her to the Member Secretary, Himachal Pradesh State Legal Services Authority."
Finally, the Court directed that "on maturity of the fixed deposit, the proceeds thereof shall be transferred to her account, and this process shall be monitored by the Himachal Pradesh State Legal Services Authority."
The Court stated: "Justice must not be limited to conviction, it must, where the law so permits, include restitution." It held that "in awarding this compensation, we reaffirm the constitutional commitment to protect the rights and dignity of child survivors, and to ensure that the justice delivered is substantive, compassionate, and complete."
Case Title: XXX vs. State of Himachal Pradesh
Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 934
Case Number: Special Leave Petition (Criminal) Diary No. 33114/2025
Bench: Justice Aravind Kumar, Justice Sandeep Mehta
