The Delhi High Court, while upholding the conviction of adoptive parents accused of subjecting a six years old girl to physical abuse and sexual assault, observed that is the duty of the investigating agency to ensure that every aspect of a case, particularly one relating to trafficking or unlawful custody, was investigated and placed before the Court.

The Bench of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma observed, “While it is true that Courts cannot direct the manner of investigation, they nevertheless bear the responsibility to point out glaring lapses where essential aspects of a heinous crime are ignored. It is the duty of the investigating agency to ensure that every aspect of a case, particularly one relating to trafficking or unlawful custody, is investigated and placed before the Court. This responsibility assumes even greater significance in cases involving children, who are the most vulnerable members of society and deserve the highest degree of protection under law. The present case, therefore, should have been treated initially by the investigating agency, not only as one involving offences of rape/sexual assault and hurt/physical assault but also as one involving grave suspicions of human trafficking or illegal custody.”

Advocate Arjun Malik represented the Petitioner, while Advocate Naresh Kumar Chahar represented the Respondent.

Case Brief

An Appeal was filed challenging the order of the Trial Court, whereby the accused was convicted for the commission of offence punishable under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 6 of the Prevention of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

A child, aged six years, was subjected to sexual assault and physical abuse, by her adoptive parents. It was alleged that the father of the victim child had beaten her on multiple occasions, inflicted burn injuries by exposing her to flame, and subjected her to sexual assault by touching and inserting fingers in her private parts.

In her statement, the child stated that her father used to hand her from the fan, while her mother used to beat her, kick her in the stomach, and strike her with a danda. The child also stated that her father subjected her to penetrative sexual assault by inserting his private part into hers.

It was also contended by the Prosecution that the victim child had been brought by the adoptive parents (accused persons) from the custody of her biological father by way of adoption, yet no adoption deed was on record. It was submitted that the law governing adoption has been compromised and the victim was kept illegally in the house of the accused persons.

Court’s Observation

The Delhi High Court referred to Section 75 of Juvenile Justice Act, among others, which deals with punishment for cruelty to a child. The High Court underscored that the provision addresses situations where a child is subjected to cruelty by persons responsible for his or her care, and aims to ensure that children are safeguarded against abuse and neglect within their households.

With regard to the testimony of the child victim, the High Court said, “The victim has clearly narrated the manner in which she was subjected to such acts, and her testimony has remained unshaken despite a lengthy cross-examination conducted on behalf of the appellants. The learned Trial Court, while appreciating this testimony, has rightly observed that her evidence could not be impeached in material particulars and inspires confidence in its truthfulness.”

The High Court also highlighted that once the victim, in her testimony, has categorically alleged the commission of sexual assault upon her by the accused, the onus shifts on the accused to rebut this presumption and to establish his innocence by leading cogent and convincing evidence.

Subsequently, the High Court observed that the presence of as many as nine injuries on the body of a minor child, involving burn wounds, swelling, and pain requiring medical attention and referral to a specialized burn unit, cannot be brushed aside as casual or trivial.

“The learned Trial Court has rightly held that the accused persons have not been able to explain why, if they were keeping the minor victim child happily, she would depose against her own parents and narrate in such detail the atrocities committed upon her”, the Court said.

After upholding the order of the Trial Court, the High Court raised concerns over the fact that despite knowing that the victim child was not the biological daughter of the accused persons, neither the investigating agency nor the Trial Court thought it appropriate to probe into the background of the victim child.

The High Court said, “The biological parents of the child were not even attempted to be traced by the investigating officer, nor was any inquiry conducted as to how the child came into the custody of the appellants in the first place. Such an omission leaves unanswered the grave question of whether the child had been trafficked or had been illegally transferred into the custody of the appellants, since even no inquiry was made into the aspect of adoption or trafficking of the minor child.”

The High Court observed that it was the duty of the investigating agency to ensure that every aspect of a case, particularly one relating to trafficking or unlawful custody, is investigated and placed before the Court. This responsibility assumes even greater significance in cases involving children, who are the most vulnerable members of society and deserve the highest degree of protection under law.

“The present case, therefore, should have been treated initially by the investigating agency, not only as one involving offences of rape/sexual assault and hurt/physical assault but also as one involving grave suspicions of human trafficking or illegal custody. The failure to investigate this aspect is a lapse that must be noted, for unless such omissions are addressed, the larger evil of trafficking and exploitation of children cannot be effectively curbed”, said the High Court.

Consequently, the High court upheld the judgment and the order of sentence passed by the Trial Court.

Accordingly, the Appeal was dismissed.

Cause Title: R V. State of NCTD (2025:DHC:8164)

Appearance:

Petitioner: Advocate Arjun Malik

Respondent: Advocates Naresh Kumar Chahar, Puja Mann

Click here to read/download Order


Delhi High CourtJustice Swarana Kanta Sharma

Pridhi Chopra

    Pridhi Chopra was earlier practicing as an Advocate in Delhi. She pursued B.A. (H) English from Gargi College, University of Delhi, and subsequently pursued a degree in Law.