The Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench) upheld the conviction and 20-year sentence imposed on the accused for repeated aggravated sexual assault on his minor daughter under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the POCSO Act.
The appellant, the victim’s father, had sole custody after her mother left home. The victim (aged about 14 years at the time of reporting) testified to over two years of repeated sexual abuse, threats, and physical assaults by her father. The events came to light after a public incident of physical violence which led neighbours to alert the police. Medical evidence confirmed old hymenal tears and fresh contusions, and DNA analysis found semen traces matching the accused on victim’s bedding.
The Special POCSO Court convicted and sentenced the appellant to 20 years’ rigorous imprisonment. The appellant was acquitted in part for Section 11 POCSO due to insufficiency of proof and other co-accused were also acquitted.
He challenged his conviction and sentence for offences under Sections 376(2)(k), 376(2)(n), 376(3), 323, and 324 IPC and Sections 4 and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, contesting the sufficiency and reliability of the prosecution case and the victim’s testimony.
The Bench comprising Justice Nivedita P. Mehta reaffirmed that the testimony of the prosecutrix, if trustworthy, is by itself sufficient for conviction, even absent corroborative evidence. The delay in FIR and non-examination of certain witnesses was explained and found inconsequential.
The judgment referenced Supreme Court principles on the supreme weight to be attached to the testimony of sexual assault victims. The court also emphasized the aggravated nature of incest and the need for stern judicial response.
The High Court dismissed the criminal appeal in its entirety, holding there was no illegality or perversity in the conviction or the quantum of sentence. The 20-year rigorous imprisonment and fines (with all sentences ordered to run concurrently) were found fully justified given the sustained, grave breach of trust and bodily integrity inflicted by a parent. Compensation for the victim and prompt fee payments to legal aid counsel were ordered.
Cases referred to:
- State of Himachal Pradesh v. Sanjay Kumar, (2017) 2 SCC 51
- State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh, 1996 (2) SCC 384
- Bhanei Prasad @Raju v. State of Himachal Pradesh 2025 INSC 934
- Sandeep Janaji Konde v. State of Maharashtra, 2016 ALL MR (Cri.) 1433
Appearances:
Ms Nishant P. Singhania, appointed Advocate for the appellant.
Ms Sonia Thakur, APP for the respondent no.1/State.
Ms Mayuri Kulkarni, appointed Advocate for the respondent no.2/Victim