Delhi High Court Upholds 20-Year Rigorous Imprisonment for Father in POCSO and Rape Case

Court Affirms Conviction and Sentencing of Father for Repeated Sexual Assault on Minor Daughter

In a significant judgment, the Delhi High Court has upheld the conviction and sentencing of an appellant, identified as BS, for the repeated sexual assault of his minor daughter. The Delhi High Court's ruling was delivered by Justice Sanjeev Narula on September 16, 2025, affirming the judgment and sentencing order of the Additional Sessions Judge at Patiala House Courts, New Delhi.

The appellant, BS, was convicted under Section 376(2)(n)(k) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO), and was sentenced to 20 years of rigorous imprisonment. The legal provisions mandate a minimum punishment of ten years, with a possibility of extending to life imprisonment.

The charges stem from an FIR registered on May 14, 2018, following a complaint by the appellant's minor daughter, who alleged repeated sexual assaults by her father. The trial court found the testimony of the prosecutrix, though not flawless, credible in its core allegations. The court noted that the presence of the appellant's semen in the victim's vaginal and cervical swabs provided sufficient scientific proof of penetrative sexual assault, upholding the conviction as unassailable.

The appellant challenged the trial court's decision on several grounds, including the reliability of the forensic report, the absence of injuries on the victim, and alleged procedural lapses in the investigation. Furthermore, the appellant contended that the trial court's imposition of a fixed-term sentence of 20 years' rigorous imprisonment was illegal under the pre-2019 amendment POCSO Act, which allowed for a sentence of not less than 10 years, extendable to life imprisonment.

The respondents, representing the State and the prosecutrix, argued against the appeal, maintaining that the prosecutrix's testimony was consistent and corroborated by scientific evidence. They contended that the trial court had lawfully exercised its discretion in awarding a fixed-term sentence within the statutory range, which was valid and proportionate to the gravity of the offence.

After careful evaluation of the evidence, the Delhi High Court found the prosecutrix's testimony credible on the core allegations and supported by forensic evidence. The court ruled that the absence of physical injuries did not negate the occurrence of penetrative sexual assault, especially given the presence of the appellant's semen in the victim's samples. Furthermore, the court dismissed the defence's challenge to the integrity of the forensic samples, citing the appellant's failure to raise objections during the trial.

In its final analysis, the court determined that the trial court's decision to impose a fixed-term sentence of 20 years was a valid exercise of sentencing discretion. The court found that the sentence was within the statutory range, as the law allows for a fixed-term sentence between the minimum and life imprisonment. The court also emphasized the gravity of the offence, involving a biological father's repeated sexual assault on his minor daughter, and found the sentence proportionate to the crime's seriousness.

Bottom Line:

Conviction under Section 376(2)(n)(k) IPC and Section 6 of POCSO upheld based on testimony of prosecutrix and corroborating DNA evidence; fixed-term sentence of 20 years' rigorous imprisonment not illegal under pre-amendment law. 

Statutory provision(s):

• - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 376(2)(n)(k)  
• - Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 - Section 6  
• - Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 118

BS v. State (NCT of Delhi), (Delhi) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2785145