5 min readNew DelhiJul 16, 2026 02:14 PM IST
The Bombay High Court has upheld the life imprisonment of a man held guilty of sexually assaulting his daughter and said that a “daughter may outgrow in her father’s lap, but she will never outgrow in his heart”.
Justices Urmila Joshi Phalke and Nivedita P Mehta further observed that it could never be a more “shocking heinous” crime when a father was charged for committing sexual assault on his own daughter. “Rape is not merely a physical assault, but it is often destructive to the whole personality of the victim and, therefore, the matters of such allegations must be dealt with utmost sensitivity,” the order stated.
Referring to the evidence, the bench noted, “The accused, who is the father of the victim, subjected her to sexual assault at a tender age. The evidence further discloses that the victim has undergone mental trauma. She could not disclose the incident to anybody as her father is involved. The evidence shows that the trust which a child carries about his or her father itself is betrayed by the accused. The accused, who was a protector, has ruined the physical as well as mental state of mind of the victim, who is his own daughter, and destroyed her future life. He had degraded the very soul of the helpless girl,” the July 15 order read.
On April 15, 2021, an Asha worker filed a complaint with the police. According to the complaint, at around 10 am on April 14, 2021, when she was surveying a village, she found the survivor and suspected she was pregnant. The worker was acquainted with the survivor, as she had always visited the ward.
Justices Urmila Joshi Phalke and Nivedita P Mehta upheld the conviction and life term sentence of the convict.
The worker claimed that on April 15, 2021, she took the survivor to a Primary Health Centre in the village, and then to the General Hospital, where she was found to be 27 weeks pregnant. Upon enquiry, the survivor did not reveal the sexual assault.
The investigation pointed to the girl’s father as the perpetrator of the crime. During the pendency of the investigation, the survivor gave birth. The police arrested the man on September 16, 2021, following which a DNA test was done on the newborn. The DNA result connected the man to the newborn, and after the criminal trial, the father was held guilty and convicted for the offence of “aggravated penetrative sexual assault” under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO) besides other relevant provisions of the IPC.
‘Not merely physical assault”
According to the bench, certain facts that had come on record — survivor being 12 at the time of the incident; the convict was her father, and she had lost her mother before the incident — had remained undisputed. The fact that he had sexually assaulted his daughter was proved by the DNA report, it added.
Story continues below this ad
The survivor being unable to disclose the perpetrator’s name was said to be “justified and natural” for the minor had lost her mother and was completely dependent on the father.
The man was held to have violated the “privacy” and “personal integrity”, aside from causing her serious psychological as well as physical harm.
The court further stated that the survivor had a fundamental and human right to live free from any kind of fear, threat, danger, or security at the hands of the members of society. Hence, the trial court was held to be justified in convicting the convict by sentencing him to imprisonment for life.
The court further pointed out that the convict, being in a position of “trust” and “dominance” over the survivor, took “undue advantage” of her and committed a “heinous” crime to fulfil his lust, because of which the survivor has to lead the rest of her life with permanent scars as well as psychological impact, thus jeopardising prospects of enjoying life.
Story continues below this ad
‘No tampering’
The convict’s lawyer, advocate K G Rathi, argued that the survivor had framed her father as he would scold her for roaming in the village without informing him. The counsel also urged that the convict was arrested merely on suspicion and his samples were never obtained and, therefore, the DNA report could not be trusted.
The lawyer representing the state, Additional Public Prosecutor Shamsi Haider, contested the claims of the defense to argue that the DNA report validated the prosecution’s theory and there was no question of tampering with the evidence. She said that the evidence of medical witnesses completed the chain of evidence.
