Delhi High Court Directs DSLSA To Coordinate Counselling For Victim Allegedly Raped By Elder Brother; Orders Disbursement Of ₹13.5L Compensation
The Delhi High Court remarked that the sexual assault occurred within the sanctity of the home, at the hands of a brother who ought to have been her protector; and it resulted in pregnancy, concealed until the second trimester.
Justice Sanjeev Narula, Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court has directed the Delhi State Legal Services Authority (DSLSA) to coordinate counselling for a victim who was allegedly raped by her elder brother.
An Appeal was preferred by the accused challenging the Judgment passed by the Trial Court, which convicted him under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) read with Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act).
A Single Bench of Justice Sanjeev Narula ordered, “The Delhi State Legal Services Authority shall, within two weeks, appoint a support person in terms of Rule 4(7) of the POCSO Rules, 2020, and coordinate counselling for the Prosecutrix, and for her parents and sister, through a qualified clinical psychologist/psychiatric social worker experienced in child sexual-abuse cases. The counsellor shall also advise on educational/vocational continuity and any further medical or legal assistance needed. A brief compliance note shall be filed before the Trial Court within six weeks.”
The Bench further ordered that if not already done, the DSLSA shall facilitate the disbursement of the compensation amount of Rs. 13,50,000/- awarded to the victim by the Trial Court.
Advocate Akshya appeared for the Appellant/Accused while APP Mukesh Kumar and Advocate Inderjeet Sidhu appeared for the Respondent/State.
Facts of the Case
In May 2020, information received from a hospital stating that a young girl (victim herein) had been brought by her mother for medical termination of pregnancy. After some time, Investigating Officer (IO) arrived at the hospital and the medical examination revealed that the victim was 22 weeks pregnant. In the presence of her sister and father, she gave a written complaint alleging that her elder brother i.e., the Appellant-accused had subjected her to sexual assault on two or three occasions, including once shortly after Holi, following which her menstrual cycle ceased in March 2020. On this complaint, an FIR was registered and during investigation, her statement was also recorded.
She stated that sexual relations had taken place with the accused “around one or two days before Holi,” but added that it was “with her consent” and that she did not wish to pursue proceedings. Nevertheless, chargesheet was filed and the Special Court took cognizance. Upon consideration of the victim’s age, the depositions of prosecution witnesses, and the medical and forensic evidence, the Trial Court held that the accused subjected the victim to repeated acts of penetrative sexual assault which culminated in her pregnancy. He was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of 20 years along with a fine of Rs. 2,000/-. Being aggrieved, the accused was before the High Court.
Reasoning
The High Court after hearing the arguments from both sides, observed, “The contemporaneous sealing, intact receipt at the laboratory, unchallenged testimony of the forensic examiner, and the absence of any defence evidence pointing to tampering, establish beyond cavil that the chain of custody was preserved. The DNA report thus stands as a piece of unimpeachable scientific evidence. Courts have repeatedly underscored that DNA evidence, when reliable, constitutes the most objective form of corroboration in sexual offence cases.”
The Court noted that the victim was a child, about fifteen-and-a-half years old at the relevant time, as proved by the municipal birth record and in a POCSO prosecution, her ‘consent’ is legally irrelevant.
“With minority, pregnancy, and biological paternity established, the statutory presumption under Section 29 of the POCSO Act stands triggered. The defence has not rebutted it even on a preponderance of probabilities. The unidentified “Rahul” remains without particulars, complaint, or contemporaneous trace; speculative hypotheses cannot dislodge a scientific identification supported by the documentary chain. No perversity or misappreciation of evidence is shown that would warrant appellate interference”, it added.
The Court remarked that the assault was not an isolated lapse but repeated; it occurred within the sanctity of the home, at the hands of a brother who ought to have been her protector; and it resulted in pregnancy, concealed until the second trimester.
“The psychological and physical trauma inflicted upon a child in such circumstances cannot be overstated. … Section 6 of the POCSO Act prescribes a minimum sentence of twenty years’ rigorous imprisonment for aggravated penetrative sexual assault under Section 5(j)(ii) and 5(l). The Trial Court, by awarding the statutory minimum, has already imposed the lowest sentence permissible in law”, it said.
The Court was of the view that the punishment imposed is neither excessive nor disproportionate; rather, it is the calibrated legislative response to the gravity of such offences.
“The Prosecutrix, her sister, and their parents stood together, not to press accusation, but to seek the Appellant’s release. The Prosecutrix, though no longer a child in years, yet plainly fragile, spoke in a low voice, visibly anxious, her thumbs nervously twisting. … Such dynamics are, sadly, not uncommon”, it further observed.
The Court also remarked that intra-familial abuse is often shrouded in silence- silence borne at the child’s expense, where duty recasts as protection of the adult, and fear that the truth, if spoken, will shatter what remains of the family and such abuse rarely ends at the bar of law; it fractures a household, reorders loyalties, and can still silence the very voice the statute is designed to protect.
“This Court does not sit in moral judgment over the family. Its remit is narrower: to apply the statute as enacted and the evidence as proved. The POCSO framework is a conscious legislative choice, excluding “consent” where the victim is a child and prescribing stern minimums for aggravated conduct. Where those elements stand established, judicial latitude is limited. The outcome here follows that mandate”, it added.
Conclusion
Moreover, the Court said that Courts cannot mend what is broken at home and the message, however, must remain unambiguous.
“A child’s bodily integrity is inviolable. … Compassion for a family in anguish cannot translate into impunity for harm done to a child. The law’s foremost duty is to safeguard the child’s dignity and safety. That duty is only partly discharged through punishment; it also demands measures of care and rehabilitation”, it further noted.
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the Appeal, affirmed the conviction, and issued necessary directions.
Cause Title- ABC v. State of NCT of Delhi (Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:7826)
Appearance:
Appellant: Advocates Akshya and Nupur Jhangala.
Respondent: APP Mukesh Kumar, Advocates Inderjeet Sidhu, Naresh Dagar, and Abhishek.
