Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court of India dealt with a Special Leave Petition challenging the judgment and order dated 03.07.2024 passed by the High Court of Himachal Pradesh in Criminal Appeal No.562 of 2019, which affirmed the conviction and sentence of the petitioner under Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner was the father of the victim, a minor girl aged around ten years at the time of the incident, and was convicted for repeatedly committing aggravated penetrative sexual assault upon his own daughter within the home. The Trial Court had evaluated oral testimony of the victim (PW3), corroborating evidence of her elder sister (PW2), and forensic and medical records, returning a verdict of guilt. The High Court affirmed the conviction and imposed life imprisonment and fine. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioner raised a plea of false implication due to strained domestic relationships and disapproval of his daughters' romantic alliances, and sought interim bail. The Court considered whether the concurrent findings warranted interference under Article 136 of the Constitution, whether bail should be granted, and whether compensation should be awarded. The Court noted that Section 29 of the POCSO Act created a statutory presumption of guilt once foundational facts were established, and that this presumption stood unrebutted. The victim's testimony was unwavering, medically corroborated, and free from embellishment; her delayed disclosure was truthful and borne out of perennial trauma and threats. The Court reiterated the settled principle that a child victim's testimony, if credible and trustworthy, requires no corroboration, and that the DNA report sealed the evidentiary chain. The Court rejected the false implication argument as hollow, observing that no daughter would fabricate charges of this magnitude against her own father merely to escape household discipline. It emphasised that incestuous sexual violence committed by a parent was a distinct category of offence that tore through familial trust and must invite the severest condemnation without mitigation. The Court held that in serious POCSO offences involving familial betrayal, bail could not be granted as a matter of routine, and where two courts had concurrently found guilt and the findings were not perverse, interference under Article 136 was unwarranted. The Court further invoked Article 142 to direct compensation, relying on Nipun Saxena v. Union of India and the NALSA Compensation Scheme for Women Victims/Survivors of Sexual Assault/Other Crimes, 2018, under which maximum compensation for rape victims was Rs. 7,00,000, enhanced by 50% for minors. Considering the victim's age and sustained nature of abuse, the Court directed payment of Rs. 10,50,000, with Rs. 7,00,000 kept in a fixed deposit for five years in a nationalised bank in the victim's name, quarterly interest withdrawable, and Rs. 3,50,000 transferred to her account, with monitoring by the Himachal Pradesh State Legal Services Authority. The Court concluded that justice must include restitution and not be limited to conviction. Accordingly, the Special Leave Petition was dismissed in limine, pending applications disposed of, and the conviction and sentence affirmed.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Aggravated Penetrative Sexual Assault by Father - Conviction under Section 6 POCSO Act and Section 506 IPC - Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, Section 6; Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 506 - The petitioner, father of a ten-year-old victim, was convicted by the Trial Court and the High Court for repeated aggravated penetrative sexual assault and criminal intimidation. The Court held that incestuous sexual violence by a parent is a distinct category of offence that tears through familial trust and must invite the severest condemnation and no mitigation in sentencing. The concurrent findings were found just, lawful and necessary, and the Special Leave Petition was dismissed in limine. (Paras 3-4, 13, 17) B) Evidence - Credibility of Child Victim - Conviction Can Rest on Sole Testimony if Trustworthy - Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, Section 29 - The victim's testimony was unwavering, medically corroborated, and free from embellishment; Section 29 created a statutory presumption of guilt that stood unrebutted. The Court reiterated that a child victim's testimony, if credible and trustworthy, requires no corroboration, and the DNA report sealed the evidentiary chain. Held that the petitioner's plea of false implication due to strained domestic relationships was hollow. (Paras 5-7) C) Bail - Interim Bail After Conviction in POCSO Cases - No Routine Relief Absent Perversity - Constitution of India, Article 136; Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, Section 6 - The petitioner sought interim bail after conviction was affirmed by two courts. The Court held that in serious POCSO offences, particularly involving familial betrayal of trust, relief cannot be granted as a matter of routine, and where two courts concurrently found guilt and findings are not perverse, interference under Article 136 is neither warranted nor justified. Held that granting bail would undermine the majesty of law and constitutional promise to every child. (Paras 11-12) D) Victim Compensation - Reparation and Rehabilitation - Article 142 May Be Invoked for Substantive Justice - Constitution of India, Article 142; Nipun Saxena v. Union of India, (2019) 2 SCC 703 - The Court accepted the NALSA Compensation Scheme for Women Victims/Survivors of Sexual Assault/Other Crimes, 2018, which prescribes Rs. 7,00,000 for rape victims, enhanced by 50% for minors. Having regard to the victim's age and sustained abuse, the Court directed Rs. 10,50,000 compensation, with Rs. 7,00,000 kept in fixed deposit for five years and Rs. 3,50,000 paid to her account, monitored by Himachal Pradesh State Legal Services Authority. Held that justice must include restitution and not be limited to conviction. (Paras 14-16)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court's judgment affirming conviction and sentence under Section 6 of the POCSO Act and Section 506 IPC warranted interference under Article 136; whether the petitioner was entitled to interim bail after concurrent conviction; whether compensation should be awarded to the child victim under Article 142 read with Nipun Saxena v. Union of India
Final Decision
The Special Leave Petition was dismissed in limine; the conviction and sentence of life imprisonment and fine under Section 6 of the POCSO Act and Section 506 IPC were affirmed. The Court directed the State of Himachal Pradesh to pay Rs. 10,50,000 as compensation to the victim, with Rs. 7,00,000 kept in fixed deposit for five years and Rs. 3,50,000 transferred to her account, monitored by Himachal Pradesh State Legal Services Authority. Pending applications disposed of.
Law Points
- Testimony of child victim if credible needs no corroboration
- Section 29 POCSO Act statutory presumption of guilt once foundational facts established
- DNA evidence seals evidentiary chain
- concurrent findings not perverse warrant no interference under Article 136
- no casual bail in serious POCSO offences involving familial betrayal
- Article 142 permits compensation for rehabilitation and reparation
- incestuous parental sexual violence invites severest condemnation and no mitigation
