Inability To Stand Alone Does Not Prove Inability To Commit Sexual Assault: Delhi High Court Upholds Father's 20-Year POCSO Sentence
The Bench upheld the 20-year sentence of father for aggravated penetrative sexual assault on his three-year-old daughter.
Justice Madhu Jain, Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court has observed that an accused’s inability to stand or move independently cannot, without further medical evidence, be equated with a complete inability to commit the alleged act. The Court rejected a father’s plea that paralysis made the allegation improbable, noting that the examining doctor had opined that nothing suggested he could not perform a sexual act, and that the child’s mother had said he could change the child’s clothes with one hand.
The Bench upheld the conviction and 20-year sentence of the father under Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, for aggravated penetrative sexual assault on his three-year-old daughter. The Court also rejected the pleas of a seven-month delay in the FIR, absence of injuries in the medical examination, and false implication through tutoring, holding that the prosecution’s case stood established even independently of the statutory presumption under Section 29 of the Act.
A Bench of Justice Madhu Jain observed, “The inability of the Appellant to stand or move independently cannot, without further medical evidence, be equated with a complete inability to use his upper limbs or commit the particular act attributed to him. Upon considering the testimony of PW-1, the evidence of PW-3 and the medical, this Court finds that the plea of physical incapacity does not create a reasonable doubt sufficient to displace the prosecution version… The medical evidence does not rule out the occurrence, while the evidence concerning the Appellant's paralysis does not establish that he was physically incapable of committing the alleged act…”.
Advocate Shivek Trehan appeared for the appellant and Advocate Amarlal appeared for the respondent.
Accordingly, the Bench dismissed an appeal under Section 415(2) read with Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, against a conviction under Section 6 of the POCSO Act.
According to the prosecution, the child, born in October 2018, was assaulted in November 2021. Her mother returned home to find her crying, and the child said her father had inserted a finger into her private part. The mother noticed bleeding, and the appellant said he had been joking. The FIR was registered on June 20, 2022, after the child complained of pain and was taken to hospital.
The Trial Court convicted the appellant on December 6, 2024, and sentenced him on February 7, 2025 to 20 years’ rigorous imprisonment, with a fine of Rs 10,000 and one year’s simple imprisonment in default.
On tutoring, the Court noted that the child had said under cross-examination that her mother slept with another man. It found it difficult to see why a mother would tutor such a statement, and held the alleged motive unsubstantiated.
On the medical evidence, the doctor had said pain persisting for six months was improbable but psychological trauma could continue. The Court held that this did not rule out the act, and that absence of injuries months later does not exclude it.
The Court accepted that the appellant was paralysed but held that his inability to stand or move independently could not, “without further medical evidence”, be equated with an inability to commit the act. The examining doctor had opined that nothing suggested he could not perform a sexual act, and the mother said he could change the child’s clothes with one hand.
The delay was held satisfactorily explained, given the child’s age and that the accused was her father.
Cause Title: J.P. v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2026:DHC:9647)
Appearances:
Appellant: Advocate Shivek Trehan (DHCLSC) with Advocate Akash Chandna.
Respondent: Advocates Amarlal, Aryma Sharma and Gauri Kumar for the victim.