The Bombay High Court has upheld the life imprisonment sentence of a man convicted of sexually assaulting his 12-year-old daughter, ruling that the trial court’s decision was fully justified given the severe abuse of parental trust.
A division bench consisting of Justices Urmila Joshi Phalke and Nivedita P Mehta issued the ruling on July 15, emphasizing that sexual assault by a parent represents an exceptionally heinous crime. The court noted that such violations cause profound, long-lasting physical and psychological devastation, requiring judicial matters of this nature to be handled with extreme sensitivity.
Medical Discovery and Investigation
The case originated in April 2021 in a local village. On April 14, 2021, an Asha health worker conducting a village survey noticed the minor and suspected she was pregnant. Having previous acquaintance with the girl through ward visits, the health worker took her to a local primary health center the following day, April 15, before transferring her to a general hospital.
Medical examinations confirmed the 12-year-old girl was 27 weeks pregnant. Although the survivor did not initially disclose who was responsible for the assault, the health worker proceeded to file a formal complaint with the police on April 15, 2021.
DNA Evidence and Trial Conviction
Subsequent police investigations identified the girl’s father as the suspect. While the investigation was still ongoing, the survivor gave birth to a child.
Police arrested the father on September 16, 2021. Following his arrest, investigators conducted a DNA test on the newborn. The DNA analysis established a genetic match to the father, linking him directly to the pregnancy.
During the subsequent criminal trial, the father was found guilty and convicted of aggravated penetrative sexual assault under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012, along with relevant sections of the Indian Penal Code.
Defense and Prosecution Arguments
In the appeal before the High Court, defense counsel K.G. Rathi argued that the victim had falsely implicated her father because he had previously scolded her for leaving the village without his permission. The defense also contended that the father was arrested purely on suspicion and asserted that his DNA samples were never properly obtained, making the DNA report unreliable.
Additional Public Prosecutor Shamsi Haider, representing the state, disputed these assertions. She argued that the DNA report conclusively supported the prosecution’s case, adding that there was no evidence of tampering and that medical testimonies fully completed the chain of evidence.
Judicial Observations on Trust and Trauma
The High Court bench rejected the defense’s arguments, noting that several core facts remained undisputed, including the victim’s age of 12, her complete financial and physical dependence on her father, and the prior loss of her mother.
The justices ruled that the survivor’s failure to immediately name her father as the assailant was entirely natural given her vulnerability and isolation. The court observed that the father occupied a position of absolute dominance and trust, which he exploited to fulfill his own lust.
In its final order, the bench remarked that while a daughter eventually outgrows her father’s lap, she remains permanently in his heart. By violating his daughter’s physical integrity and safety, the court ruled, the father betrayed that fundamental bond, leaving her with permanent psychological scars and justifying the trial court’s life sentence.
