Supreme Court upholds POCSO conviction of man who raped his daughter

The Supreme Court on August 4 upheld the conviction and life sentence handed down to a man for repeatedly raping his ten-year-old daughter.

A bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and Sandeep Mehta rejected the man's argument that he had been falsely implicated because he had disapproved of his daughters’ romantic alliances.

The Court said that the claim was “completely hollow” and no daughter would fabricate such charges against her father to escape household discipline.

"The argument raised before us is that the petitioner was falsely implicated due to strained domestic relationships and disapproval of romantic alliances of his daughters is completely hollow. No daughter, however aggrieved, would fabricate charges of this magnitude against her own father merely to escape household discipline," the Bench said.

It described the offence as one that “subverts the very notion of family as a space of security” and directed the State to pay ₹10.5 lakh as compensation to the survivor.

It upheld the man's conviction under Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO) and Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), noting that the assaults were not isolated but sustained over time, taking place within the safety of the home, which should have been a sanctuary.

The Court recorded that both the trial court and the High Court had rightly relied on the testimony of the child, her sister, and forensic and medical evidence to return a finding of guilt. It emphasised that the presumption of guilt under Section 29 of the POCSO Act had remained unrebutted.

“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,” the Court said.

The Court condemned the offence in the strongest terms, stating that when the abuser is the father, it constitutes an institutional betrayal. It warned that any judicial leniency in such matters would undermine the Constitution’s child protection mandate.

“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. When a child is forced to suffer at the hands of her own father, the law must speak in a voice that is resolute and uncompromising. There can be no mitigation in sentencing for crimes that subvert the very notion of family as a space of security,” the bench said.

The Court also observed that justice must go beyond conviction and punishment and must include reparation and the reaffirmation of dignity. It invoked Article 142 of the Constitution to grant enhanced compensation to the survivor.

“Justice must not be limited to conviction, it must, where the law so permits, include restitution. 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,” the Court said.

Invoking a verse from the Manusmriti, the Court linked its reasoning to both cultural principle and constitutional vision.

“Yatra nāryastu pūjyante ramante tatra devatāḥ, yatraitaastu na pūjyante sarvāstatra aphalāḥ kriyāḥ.”

"Where women are honoured, divinity flourishes; and where they are dishonoured, all acts become fruitless." the Court quoted.

It then ordered the State of Himachal Pradesh to pay ₹10.5 lakh in compensation to the survivor.

Of this, ₹7 lakh is to be kept in fixed deposit for five years with quarterly interest to be accessed by the survivor. The remaining ₹3.5 lakh is to be transferred directly to her account to be facilitated by the Himachal Pradesh State Legal Services Authority.

The Court concluded that there was no infirmity in the concurrent findings of guilt and that the conviction and sentence of life imprisonment were both lawful and necessary.