“Tragic & Unfortunate Would Be Belittling Trauma Undergone”: Delhi High Court Upholds 15 Years Sentence Of Stepfather In POCSO Case
The Bench noted that the circumstances were so heavily loaded against him that there was no escape from the conclusion.
The Delhi High Court while upholding the 15-year sentence of a stepfather for the sexual assault of his minor stepdaughters, observed that describing the trauma undergone by the victims as merely "tragic" or "unfortunate" would be belittling their ordeal.
The Bench noted that the scientific evidence, testimony of the victim, and the circumstances were so heavily loaded against the Appellant, that there was no escape from the conclusion that he sexually assaulted his minor daughters.
Justice Vimal Kumar Yadav observed, “Tragic and unfortunate would be belittling the trauma undergone by the victims in the instant case at the hands of their step-father. The man in whom they, as children, were supposed to find comfort, solace and security, turned out to be the perpetrator of sexual assault…”.
“In the instant case, the testimony of the victims, more particularly of victim ‘K’ is credible and trustworthy being free from any sort of embellishment or mix up, so far as narration of events is concerned and in any case, corroboration also is there to support the version of victim ‘K’, in both segments i.e. ocular and direct evidence together with scientific and technical. The circumstances are heavily loaded against the Appellant in such a manner that there is no escape for him from the conclusion that he sexually assaulted his minor step-daughters”, further noted.
Advocate Manika Tripathy and Appellant-in-person appeared for the appellant and Mukesh Kumar, APP appeared for the respondent.
The matter involved the sexual assault of two minor stepdaughters by the appellant on April 25 and April 28, 2014. The appellant took advantage of the absence of the children's biological mother, who was at a hospital attending to a sick infant.
On the night of the primary incident, the appellant forcefully brought the elder victim, 'K', home from the hospital despite the mother's apprehensions. The ordeal came to light when the victims’ screams attracted the attention of their landlords, who rescued the girls and facilitated the reporting of the matter to the police.
The appellant was originally convicted by the ASJ-01, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi, on March 30, 2022, for offences under Section 376(2)(f)(i) IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act. He was sentenced to 15 years of rigorous imprisonment and ordered to pay compensation of Rs. 6,00,000 to the dependents of victim 'K', who passed away during the trial. The appellant subsequently challenged this conviction before the Delhi High Court.
The Court rejected the appellant's argument that the case was based on false implications due to family animosity, noting that the victims' testimonies were of "sterling quality" and consistently pointed to his guilt.
While the defense highlighted discrepancies regarding the exact date (April 28 or 29) and the appellant's physical position in the room, the Court ruled these were minor variations natural to a witness under stress. Crucially, the Court observed that scientific evidence in the form of an FSL report corroborated the elder victim's testimony, as DNA analysis linked seminal stains on the victim’s clothing and medical slides directly to the appellant. Citing Supreme Court precedents, the Bench reiterated that a victim of sexual assault is not an accomplice and her evidence should not be viewed with suspicion.
“…To add salt to the injury, their biological mother also seemingly acquiesced to the trauma undergone by the girls as she kept quiet or did not take the requisite measures to save the children when the indecent acts of the Appellant were brought to her notice except moving out of the house for some time and then came back to live with Appellant. Seemingly, she was torn between the devil and the deep sea as she had left her former husband and biological father of the victims herein and not only started living with the Appellant, but bore a girl child to him as well. That seems to be the reason why, alongwith the Appellant, she too was chargesheeted and tried, but was acquitted by the learned Trial Court”, the Bench noted.
Finding no merit in the appeal, the Court dismissed the petition and upheld the Trial Court's judgment of conviction and order on sentence. The appellant was directed to surrender forthwith to serve the remainder of his 15-year sentence.
Cause Title: Ram Murat v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2026:DHC:3268)
Appearances:
Appellant: Appellant-in-person, Manika Tripathy (DHCLSC), Roman Khan and Saksham, Advocates.
Respondents: Mukesh Kumar, APP, Monisha Handa (Amicus Curiae) for the victim.