Synopsis

The appellant, a father, was convicted under Section 6 read with Sections 5(l) and 5(n) of the POCSO Act and Section 506(i) of the IPC for repeatedly sexually assaulting his minor daughter, which resulted in pregnancy. The prosecutrix initially falsely implicated a friend but later, in her Section 164 Cr.P.C. statement, named her father. DNA testing conclusively established that the appellant fathered the aborted foetus. The trial court sentenced him to life imprisonment. On appeal, the Delhi High Court confirmed the conviction and sentence, holding that the DNA evidence was unimpeachable, the victim’s testimony was credible despite initial hostility, and no leniency could be shown to a father who betrays the sacred trust of parenthood. The court relied on its recent decisions in DRY v. State and BS v. State, and the Supreme Court’s judgment in Bhanel Prasad v. State of Himachal Pradesh, to reiterate that incestuous sexual violence by a parent must invite the severest condemnation.

Court: High Court of Delhi at New Delhi

Coram: Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Madhu Jain

Date of Judgment: 9th April 2026

Citation: 2026:DHC:3053-DB (CRLA.10/2019)

Core Law: Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012; Indian Penal Code, 1860; Criminal Procedure Code, 1973

2. Legal Framework

Major laws and provisions involved

• Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012 – Sections 5(l) (aggravated penetrative sexual assault – repeated assault), 5(n) (aggravated assault – person in position of trust or authority), 6 (punishment for aggravated penetrative sexual assault), 29 (presumption of guilt)

• Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 506(i) (criminal intimidation)

• Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 374(2) (appeal against conviction), Section 433 (commutation of sentence), Section 164 (recording of statements)

Key legal principles applied

• Presumption under Section 29 of POCSO Act: Once foundational facts are established, the court shall presume that the accused has committed the offence. The burden shifts to the accused to rebut the presumption.

• DNA evidence as conclusive proof: In cases of sexual assault resulting in pregnancy, DNA profiling is unimpeachable scientific evidence that establishes paternity with certainty. It overrides contradictory oral testimony.

• Hostile witness does not demolish prosecution case: If the victim turns hostile under family pressure but her prior statements under Section 164 Cr.P.C. are consistent and corroborated by medical and DNA evidence, conviction can still be sustained.

• Credibility of c

... Upgrade to a Premium Plan to view the full judgment.