Sanchayita Lahkar

The High Court of Rajasthan Division Bench of Justice Vinit Kumar Mathur and Justice Chandra Shekhar Sharma upheld the conviction of a man for raping his minor daughter under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, dismissing his appeal against the trial court’s verdict. The Bench held that the testimony of the child victim, being the daughter of the accused, constituted the most credible evidence of the crime, as there was no plausible reason for her to falsely accuse her own father. The Court further observed that the delay in lodging the FIR was adequately explained by the family’s social circumstances and the sensitivity of the allegations, and such delay could not, by itself, undermine the prosecution’s case.

The criminal appeal arose from the conviction of the accused for offences relating to sexual assault committed against his minor daughter. The prosecution case originated from a handwritten complaint submitted by the victim’s mother at the concerned police station, alleging that during her absence from the matrimonial home, the accused had sexually assaulted their minor daughter on multiple occasions. The complaint further disclosed that the victim was threatened and intimidated, resulting in delayed disclosure of the incidents.

Also Read: Judge Cannot Be Presumed Biased Merely Because Party’s Relative Is A Head Constable Or Court Staff; Supreme Court

On the basis of the complaint, an FIR was registered for offences under the Indian Penal Code and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. After completion of investigation, a charge sheet was filed. The trial court framed charges and conducted the trial, during which the prosecution examined multiple witnesses including the victim, her mother, and medical experts, and produced documentary evidence. The accused denied the allegations in his statement under Section 313 CrPC and did not lead any defence evidence.

The trial court convicted the accused and imposed life imprisonment along with fines. Aggrieved, the accused preferred the present appeal, contending false implication due to marital discord and relying upon forensic and DNA reports. The State opposed the appeal, supporting the findings of the trial court.

The Division Bench recorded that “a close scrutiny of the record reveals that the prosecution has successfully established its case beyond reasonable doubt.” The Court found the testimony of the child victim to be reliable, observing that “the testimony of PW-1, the victim, inspires full confidence” and that her evidence was “natural, cogent, and consistent, and it bears the stamp of truth.”

With respect to the competency of the child witness, the Court noted that “her competency to depose was duly assessed by the Court, and she answered questions intelligently and without tutoring.” The Bench further recorded that “there is no material contradiction or embellishment in her statement.”

Addressing corroboration, the Court observed that “the testimony of PW-2, the victim’s mother, fully corroborates the version of PW-1.” On the aspect of delay in lodging the FIR, the Court stated that “the delay stands satisfactorily explained, considering the social stigma, family circumstances, and the gravity of the allegation.”

The medical evidence was also examined, with the Court recording that “the medical evidence adduced through PW-9 further corroborates the prosecution case.” The finding of torn hymen and the medical opinion were held to “strongly support the ocular testimony of the victim.”

Regarding the defence plea of false implication and reliance on forensic reports, the Court observed that “the submission of false implication due to marital discord remains a bald suggestion without any supporting evidence.” It further noted that “no material has been brought on record to show any prior animosity strong enough for the mother to falsely implicate her husband.”

On statutory presumptions, the Bench recorded that “the victim is a minor below 12 years of age, and therefore, the question of consent does not arise at all,” and that “the statutory presumption operates fully against the accused, which has remained unrebutted.”

The Court also recorded the gravity of the offence, observing that “where the offender is the father, the offence transcends ordinary criminality and assumes an abhorrent character.”

Also Read: Serious Threat To Society & Nation : Rajasthan High Court Dismisses Life Convicts’ Pleas For Premature Release In 1993 Serial Train Blasts Case

The Court directed that “we find no infirmity or perversity in the concurrent findings of the learned Special Judge (POCSO) below.” and “the impugned conviction dated 14.11.2022 is upheld.”

“The State of Rajasthan is directed to pay a sum of Rs.7,00,000/- (Rupees Seven Lakhs Only) to the victim as compensation pursuant to the Compensation Scheme for Women Victims/Survivors of Sexual Assault/Other Crimes, 2018. Accordingly, the present Criminal Appeal is dismissed.”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Appellant: Mr. Amardeep Lamba, Amicus Curiae
For the Respondents: Mr. Rajesh Bhati, Public Prosecutor

Case Title: Manoj v. State of Rajasthan & Anr.
Neutral Citation: 2026: RJ-JD:740-DB
Case Number: D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 41/2023
Bench: Justice Vinit Kumar Mathur, Justice Chandra Shekhar Sharma