Incestuous Sexual Violence Committed By Parent Requires Severest Punishment : Supreme Court Upholds Father's POCSO Conviction

Incestuous sexual violence cannot be condoned under any circumstances as it shakes the very foundation of the familial trust, observed the Supreme Court while upholding the conviction of a father who repeatedly raped his minor daughter aged ten years.

Upholding the life sentence imposed on him for the offence of penetrative sexual assault under Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, the Court also directed the Himachal Pradesh Legal Services Authority to pay an amount of Rs.10,50,000/- as compensation to the victim girl, who has attained majority now.

"The facts of the case reveal a story of unspeakable betrayal of trust by none other than the father of the victim," the Court noted with dismay at the very outset. Rejecting the father's argument that he was falsely implicated due to strained domestic relationships, the Court observed, "No daughter, however aggrieved, would fabricate charges of this magnitude against her own father merely to escape household discipline."

Incestuous offences require the severest condemnation

The Court stated that incestuous offences required the "severest condemnation and deterrent punishment." To pardon such depravity under any guise would be a travesty of justice and a betrayal of the child protection mandate embedded in our constitutional and statutory framework.

Betrayal of trust placed in father

“When a father who is expected to be a shield, a guardian, a moral compass, becomes the source of the most severe violation of a child's bodily integrity and dignity, the betrayal is not only personal but institutional. The law does not, and cannot, condone such acts under the guise of rehabilitation or reform. Incestuous sexual violence committed by a parent is a distinct category of offence that tears through the foundational fabric of familial trust and must invite the severest condemnation in both language and sentence. The home, which should be a sanctuary, cannot be permitted to become a site of unspeakable trauma, and the courts must send a clear signal that such offences will be met with an equally unsparing judicial response.”, the Court observed.

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 Court stated.

Thus, apart from penal consequences of the Appellant's-father's act, the Court directed Rs. 10,50,000/- compensation to be paid to the victim by the State of Himachal Pradesh as part of Compensation Scheme for Women Victims/Survivors of Sexual Assault/Other Crimes, 2018 implemented by the direction passed in Nipun Saxena v. Union of India (2019).

“This Court reiterates that 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 added.

Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed.

Cause Title: BHANEI PRASAD @ RAJU VS. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 781

Click here to read/download the order

Appearance:

For Petitioner(s) :Mr. Krishna Pal Singh, AOR Ms. Anvita Aprajita, Adv. Mr. Mohan Singh Bais, Adv. Mr. Seemab Qayyum, Adv.

For Respondent(s) : None