In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India has dismissed a Special Leave Petition filed by a father challenging his conviction and life sentence for the aggravated penetrative sexual assault of his own minor daughter. A bench comprising Justices Aravind Kumar and Sandeep Mehta upheld the concurrent findings of the Trial Court and the Himachal Pradesh High Court, terming the father’s acts a “demonic character” of crime. The Court, invoking its extraordinary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, also enhanced the compensation for the victim to ₹10,50,000.
Background of the Case
The petitioner, Bhanei Prasad @ Raju, had approached the Supreme Court to assail the final judgment dated July 3, 2024, by the High Court of Himachal Pradesh. The High Court had affirmed his conviction under Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act) and Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code.
The case involved what the Supreme Court described as an “unspeakable betrayal of trust by none other than the father of the victim.” The petitioner was found guilty of committing repeated and sustained aggravated penetrative sexual assaults on his daughter, who was approximately ten years old at the time of the offences. The acts took place within the confines of their home.
The Trial Court had convicted the petitioner after a “meticulous evaluation of the oral testimony of the victim (PW3), the corroborating evidence of her elder sister (PW2), and the compelling forensic and medical records.” The High Court subsequently upheld this verdict and the sentence of life imprisonment in a “well-reasoned judgment.”
Petitioner’s Arguments
Before the Supreme Court, the counsel for the petitioner argued that he was falsely implicated in the case. It was contended that the allegations were a result of “strained domestic relationships and disapproval of romantic alliances of his daughters.”
Court’s Analysis
The Supreme Court dismissed the petitioner’s arguments as “completely hollow.” The bench made a poignant observation, stating, “No daughter, however aggrieved, would fabricate charges of this magnitude against her own father merely to escape household discipline.”
The Court heavily relied on the testimony of the child victim, which it found to be “unwavering, medically corroborated, and free from embellishment.” While acknowledging a delay in the disclosure, the Court attributed it to the “perennial trauma and threats she has undergone.” It reiterated the established legal principle that “the testimony of a child victim, if found credible and trustworthy, requires no corroboration.”
Further strengthening the prosecution’s case, the Court noted that the victim’s account was validated by “unimpeachable scientific evidence.” In particular, the judgment highlighted that “The DNA report sealed the evidentiary chain and has dispelled all doubts in the prosecution case.”
The bench underscored the statutory presumption of guilt under Section 29 of the POCSO Act, which it held stood unrebutted by the petitioner.
Describing the gravity of the offence, the Court observed that when the perpetrator is the father, “the crime assumes a demonic character.” It stated that such offences deserve “the severest condemnation and deterrent punishment,” and to pardon such depravity “would be a travesty of justice.”
Refusing to grant bail, the Court remarked that its “judicial conscience does not permit casual indulgence” in such cases where two courts have concurrently found the accused guilty based on clear and corroborated evidence. The bench held that entertaining the petition would be a “judicial insult to the sanctity of womanhood and a blow to every mother who teaches her child to believe in justice.”
The judgment also quoted an ancient scripture to emphasize the constitutional vision regarding the dignity of women:
“Yatra nāryastu pūjyante ramante tatra devatāḥ, yatraitaastu na pūjyante sarvāstatra aphalāḥ kriyāh.”
(Where women are honoured, divinity flourishes; and where they are dishonoured, all acts become fruitless.)
Decision and Directions on Compensation
The Supreme Court, finding “no infirmity or perversity in the concurrent findings of the Courts below,” dismissed the Special Leave Petition in limine.
However, the Court held that justice in such cases must extend beyond penal consequences to include rehabilitation and reparation. Exercising its powers under Article 142, the Court directed the State of Himachal Pradesh to pay a total compensation of ₹10,50,000 to the victim. This was calculated based on the “Compensation Scheme for Women Victims/Survivors of Sexual Assault/Other Crimes, 2018,” as discussed in the case of Nipun Saxena v. Union of India, which provides for enhanced compensation for minor victims.
The Court laid down the following mechanism for the disbursal of the compensation amount:
- A sum of ₹7,00,000 is to be kept in a fixed deposit in a nationalised bank for a period of five years in the victim’s name. She will be entitled to withdraw the quarterly interest.
- The balance amount of ₹3,50,000 is to be transferred directly to her bank account.
The Himachal Pradesh State Legal Services Authority has been tasked with monitoring this process to ensure compliance.
In its concluding remarks, the Court reaffirmed its “constitutional commitment to protect the rights and dignity of child survivors, and to ensure that the justice delivered is substantive, compassionate, and complete.”
