Incestuous Sexual Violence Is Not Just a Personal Betrayal but an Institutional One, Says Supreme Court While Upholding Life Term

The Supreme Court has delivered a scathing indictment of incestuous sexual violence, calling it one of the gravest forms of familial betrayal, as it upheld the life sentence awarded to a man who repeatedly raped his 10-year-old daughter.

In a powerful judgment that reinforces the legal system’s zero-tolerance stance on sexual offences within the home, the Court said that when a father, who is meant to protect, guide and nurture, becomes the source of unspeakable trauma, the betrayal cuts far deeper than a mere crime against an individual. It is, the Court said, a collapse of the institution of family itself.

The bench rejected the convict’s plea for bail and dismissed his special leave petition challenging concurrent findings of guilt recorded by both the trial court and the Himachal Pradesh High Court. The man had been convicted for aggravated penetrative sexual assault under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act.

The Supreme Court observed that the repeated assaults took place not in a setting of stranger danger but within the so-called safety of the child’s home. “The home, which should be a sanctuary, cannot be permitted to become a site of unspeakable trauma,” the bench remarked. “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 man had argued that he had been falsely implicated due to strained domestic relationships and disapproval of his daughters’ romantic choices. The Court found this argument completely hollow, stating bluntly that no daughter, however aggrieved, would fabricate such serious charges against her father merely to escape discipline.

The Court noted that the child’s allegations were supported not only by medical and forensic evidence but also by the oral testimony of her elder sister. Citing a verse from the Manusmriti on the dignity of women, the Court emphasised that under the constitutional framework and evolving criminal jurisprudence, the dignity of women and children is non-negotiable. “Our legal system must not permit repeated intrusion into that dignity under the guise of misplaced sympathy or alleged procedural fairness,” the Court observed.

The bench noted that the trial court had meticulously evaluated all evidence before convicting the man. This included the unshaken testimony of the minor, corroborative evidence from her sister, and conclusive medical reports. A DNA report, which confirmed paternity and biological involvement, sealed the evidentiary chain and removed all reasonable doubt. Reiterating the principles under Section 29 of the POCSO Act, the Court pointed out that once foundational facts are established, a statutory presumption of guilt arises. In this case, that presumption had remained unrebutted. “The victim’s testimony was unwavering, medically corroborated, and free from embellishment,” the Court said. While the disclosure of the abuse came with some delay, the bench found that the trauma and sustained threats explained the hesitation.

The Court also reiterated that the testimony of a child victim, if found credible and consistent, does not require further corroboration. “The courts below have not merely accepted the victim’s account; they have validated it through unimpeachable scientific evidence,” the bench noted. In a strong message against leniency in such cases, the Supreme Court declined to entertain the petitioner’s bail application. “This Court’s judicial conscience does not permit casual indulgence in a case where the conviction has been rendered after full-fledged trial, affirmed in appeal, and the testimony of the victim is clear, cogent, and duly corroborated,” it held.

The judgment made clear that in serious offences involving familial betrayal of trust, particularly under the POCSO Act, bail cannot be granted as a matter of routine. The bench observed that interfering in such cases under Article 136 of the Constitution is neither warranted nor justified unless the findings of the lower courts are shown to be manifestly perverse, which was not the case here. In a noteworthy addition, the Court awarded ₹10.50 lakh in compensation to the victim, directing the State of Himachal Pradesh to pay the amount in accordance with the Victim Compensation Scheme. The bench emphasised that justice must not end with conviction, it must also 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 stated.

Concluding its judgment, the Court declared that when a child is forced to suffer at the hands of her own father, the legal system 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.” Finding no error in the findings of the lower courts, the Supreme Court dismissed the special leave petition at the threshold.

Case Title: Bhanei Prasad @ Raju Vs State of Himachal Pradesh

Judgment Date: August 2025

Bench: Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Sandeep Mehta