Read Time: 10 minutes

Synopsis

The Delhi High Court, recently, held that the courts have a bounden duty to protect the rights of minor victims of sexual assault even when their parents have settled the disputes among themselves. These observations were made in a regular bail petition by the man accused of raping his 13 year old daughter.

The bench of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma held, “The legal system recognizes the rights of every child, and even in situations where their own parents fail to stand by them or support them, the Court has a bounden duty to uphold their voice, protect their rights, and ensure that justice is served in accordance with the law”. 

Per the prosecutrix, the father, after being released from jail in March 2023, started staying close to the daughter. The daughter further claimed that multiple times she woke up experiencing pain in her private parts. She believed that the father had dosed her food and sexually assaulted her while she was asleep. However, due to frequent conflicts between her parents, she refrained from reporting such assaults. Later, she confronted the father, who apologised and assured her that such incidents would not recur. 

Senior Advocate Ramesh Gupta, representing the accused father, argued that the case was fabricated by the mother as an afterthought. It was asserted that cases of domestic violence were ongoing between the parents, and therefore, the mother had orchestrated such allegations. Senior Advocate Gupta also asserted that a similar complaint had been filed previously, and a settlement was reached between the accused father and the mother. ‘It is stated that following the compromise, the parties had resumed cohabitation, and now, a fresh complaint of this nature – allegedly orchestrated by the wife – is not believable’, Senior Advocate Gupta argued. 

However, Additional Public Prosecutor Naresh Kumar Chahar for the State, argued ‘the gravity of the allegations, coupled with the fact that the victim is the biological daughter of the applicant/accused, adds to the gravity of the offence’. 

The court rejected the father’s argument that the complaint was filed by the mother to settle marital discord and to extort money from the father. The court noted that the mere existence of a marital relationship between the mother and the accused father, along with the fact that their marriage is experiencing turmoil and multiple disputes, cannot alone serve as a basis for outrightly dismissing the allegations made by the daughter. 

Furthermore, the court opined that “The prosecutrix, who is a minor, cannot be deprived of her right as an individual to seek justice merely because her parents are embroiled in litigation. The right of a victim of sexual assault to report cannot be viewed with suspicion solely because the allegations pertain to incest”. 

The court underscored that the daughter's statements could not be disregarded, given the allegations that her father had repeatedly threatened her and that her mother had restrained her from revealing such incidents. Additionally, the court stressed that the mere settlement of a prior complaint by the parents did not justify the assumption that the present complaint was false.

Additionally, the court outlined that “Each case has to be examined on its own merits, and a past settlement between the parties does not grant immunity against fresh allegations of a grave nature. Merely because the prosecutrix’s mother had earlier entered into a compromise with the accused and had given her no objection to the grant of bail to the accused/petitioner in the said case, alone cannot lead to the presumption that she is a habitual complainant, nor does it diminish the gravity of the present allegations, especially when specific allegations have been levelled by the minor prosecutrix herein”. 

The court further emphasized the psychological and emotional trauma of the minor daughter due to the marital discord between her parents, as well as the alleged acts of sexual assault from her father. “She was placed in a deeply vulnerable position, being harassed and traumatized both by the discord between her parents and the alleged acts of sexual violence committed against her”, the court remarked. 

The court highlighted its bounden duty to protect the rights and ensure justice to minor victims of sexual assault, even in cases where the parents fail to stand by them. The court also outlined that the rights of a minor victim of sexual assault cannot be negated merely because their parents chose to settle the dispute among themselves. Accordingly, the court dismissed the bail application. 

For Accused: Senior Advocate Ramesh Gupta with Advocates M Begum, Nandita Rao, Jai Shankar, Amit Dubey, Manoj Kumar Makhija and Mayank Bhaiya
For State: Additional Public Prosecutor Naresh Kumar Chahar
Case Title: X v NCT