Summary
Special leave petition by a father convicted under Section 6 of the POCSO Act and Section 506 IPC for repeated aggravated penetrative sexual assault on his minor daughter was dismissed in limine. The Court found the concurrent findings free of perversity, refused interim bail, held that incestuous sexual violence by a parent admits of no mitigation in sentence, and, invoking Article 142, directed the State to pay the victim Rs.10,50,000 as compensation under the NALSA 2018 Scheme.
Issues
- Whether the concurrent conviction and sentence of life imprisonment under Section 6 of the POCSO Act and Section 506 IPC warranted interference under Article 136.
- Whether the testimony of the child victim, corroborated by medical and DNA evidence, could be discarded on the plea of false implication arising from strained domestic relations.
- Whether interim bail can be granted after conviction has been affirmed in appeal on cogent and corroborated evidence.
- Whether, beyond affirming the sentence, the Court should direct victim compensation under the NALSA Compensation Scheme, 2018.
Provisions considered
- Section 6, Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012Conviction for aggravated penetrative sexual assault on the convict's own daughter, aged about ten, was affirmed; the sentence of life imprisonment with fine imposed by the courts below was held to be just, lawful and necessary. (¶¶ 2, 3, 4, 17)
- Section 29, Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012The statutory presumption of guilt arises once the foundational facts are established; here it stood unrebutted because the victim's testimony was unwavering, medically corroborated and free from embellishment. (¶ 5)
- Section 506, Indian Penal Code, 1860Conviction for criminal intimidation, recorded alongside the POCSO offence, was affirmed; the victim's delayed disclosure was attributed to the trauma and threats she had undergone. (¶¶ 2, 5, 17)
- Article 136, Constitution of IndiaWhere two courts have concurrently found guilt and the findings are not shown to be perverse, interference under Article 136 is neither warranted nor justified; the petition was dismissed in limine. (¶¶ 11, 17)
- Article 142, Constitution of IndiaConstitutional justice under Article 142 extends beyond punishment to rehabilitation, reparation and affirmation of dignity; the Court used it to direct payment of victim compensation in addition to the sentence. (¶¶ 14, 15, 16)
- Maximum compensation for rape victims, enhanced by 50% for minors, Compensation Scheme for Women Victims/Survivors of Sexual Assault/Other Crimes, 2018 (NALSA), as directed in Nipun Saxena v. Union of IndiaThe Scheme prescribes a maximum of Rs.7,00,000 for rape victims, enhanced by 50% where the victim is a minor; having regard to the victim's age and the sustained abuse, the Court directed Rs.10,50,000 to be paid by the State of Himachal Pradesh. (¶¶ 14, 15)
Held
- The testimony of a child victim, if found credible and trustworthy, requires no corroboration; here the courts below went further and validated it through unimpeachable scientific evidence, the DNA report sealing the evidentiary chain. The presumption under Section 29 of the POCSO Act stood unrebutted. (¶¶ 5, 6)
- The plea that the petitioner was falsely implicated because of strained domestic relationships and disapproval of his daughters' romantic alliances was rejected as hollow: no daughter would fabricate charges of this magnitude against her own father merely to escape household discipline. (¶ 7)
- Interim bail cannot be casually granted where conviction follows a full trial, has been affirmed in appeal and rests on clear, cogent and corroborated testimony of the victim; in serious POCSO offences involving familial betrayal of trust, relief is not granted as a matter of routine, and concurrent findings not shown to be perverse do not warrant interference under Article 136. (¶¶ 11, 12)
- Incestuous sexual violence committed by a parent is a distinct category of offence that must invite the severest condemnation in both language and sentence; there can be no mitigation in sentencing for crimes that subvert the notion of the family as a space of security, and a plea for leniency in such a case would betray the Court's constitutional duty to protect the vulnerable. (¶¶ 9, 13)
- Justice in such cases is not limited to conviction but, where the law permits, includes restitution. Under Article 142 and the NALSA Compensation Scheme, 2018 (maximum Rs.7,00,000 for rape, enhanced by 50% for minor victims), the Court directed compensation of Rs.10,50,000, with part of it secured in a fixed deposit to protect the victim's future interest even though she had attained majority. (¶¶ 14, 15, 16)
Result
Special leave petition dismissed in limine; delay condoned; conviction and sentence affirmed. State of Himachal Pradesh directed to pay the victim Rs.10,50,000 as compensation: Rs.7,00,000 to be kept in a fixed deposit in a nationalised bank in her name for five years with liberty to withdraw quarterly interest, and Rs.3,50,000 to be transferred to her account, details to be furnished to the Member Secretary, Himachal Pradesh State Legal Services Authority, which will monitor the process. Pending applications disposed of.