BHANEI PRASAD @ RAJUversusSTATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

           [2025] 9 S.C.R. 91 : 2025 INSC 934

                  Bhanei Prasad @ Raju
                            v.
                State of Himachal Pradesh
   (Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 11587 of 2025)
                         04 August 2025
      [Aravind Kumar and Sandeep Mehta, JJ.]


                    Issue for Consideration
Matter pertains to correctness of the order passed by the High Court
upholding the order of conviction of the father u/s.6 POCSO Act
and s.506 IPC and imposition of life imprisonment, for committing
sexual assault of his own minor daughter.

                           Headnotes†
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 –
ss.6, 29 – Penal Code, 1860 – s.506 – Sexual assault on
minor – Repeated aggravated penetrative sexual assault by
father upon his minor daughter, aged ten years old – These
acts were sustained, deliberate assaults within the safety of
the home – Conviction of the father u/s.6 POCSO Act and
s.506 IPC and imposition of life imprisonment by the courts
below – Correctness:
Held: Conviction and sentence awarded by the courts below found
to be just, lawful and necessary – No infirmity or perversity in
the concurrent findings of the courts below – Presumption u/s.29
stood unrebutted – Victim’s testimony was unwavering, medically
corroborated, and free from embellishment – Her disclosure,
though delayed, was truthful and borne out of perennial trauma
and threats she has undergone – Testimony of a child victim, if
found credible and trustworthy, requires no corroboration – Courts
below have not merely accepted the victim’s account, they have
validated it through unimpeachable scientific evidence – DNA
report sealed the evidentiary chain and has dispelled all doubts
in the prosecution case – No daughter, however aggrieved, would
fabricate charges of this magnitude against her own father merely
to escape household discipline – Such offences of sexual abuse
deserve nothing but the severest condemnation and deterrent
punishment – Entertaining of the present petition or remotely
considering the grant of bail, after the guilt has been proved and
92                                                             [2025] 9 S.C.R.

                           Supreme Court Reports


      affirmed, would not merely undermine the majesty of the law, it
      would amount to a betrayal of the constitutional promise made
      to every child of this country – It would be a judicial insult to the
      sanctity of womanhood and a blow to every mother who teaches
      her child to believe in justice – When a father who is expected to
      be a shield, a guardian, a moral compass, becomes the source of
      the most severe violation of a child’s bodily integrity and dignity,
      the betrayal is not only personal but institutional – Incestuous
      sexual violence committed by a parent is a distinct category of
      offence that tears through the foundational fabric of familial trust
      and must invite the severest condemnation in both language and
      sentence – There can be no mitigation in sentencing for crimes
      that subvert the very notion of family as a space of security – Arc
      of constitutional justice, particularly u/Art.142, extends beyond
      punishment to encompass rehabilitation, reparation, and the
      affirmation of human dignity – Having regard to the age of the
      victim at the time of the offence, the sustained nature of the abuse,
      and the constitutional obligation to provide meaningful redress, a
      sum of Rs.10,50,000/- to be paid to the victim as compensation
      as per the Scheme by the State. [Paras 4-17]

                               Case Law Cited
      Nipun Saxena v. Union of India [2018] 14 SCR 755 : (2019) 2
      SCC 703 – relied on.

                                 List of Acts
      Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012; Penal
      Code, 1860; Constitution of India.

                              List of Keywords
      Father committing sexual assault of his own minor daughter;
      Repeated aggravated penetrative sexual assault; Deliberate
      assaults within the safety of the home; Life imprisonment;
      Presumption; Medical corroborated; Testimony of a child victim;
      Unimpeachable scientific evidence; DNA report; Household
      discipline; Severest condemnation; Deterrent punishment;
      Judicial insult; Guardian; Moral compass; Rehabilitation or reform;
      Incestuous sexual violence; Constitutional justice; Affirmation of
      human dignity; Compensation; Compensation Scheme for Women
      Victims/Survivors of Sexual Assault/Other Crimes, 2018; Rule of
      law; Justice delivery system.
[2025] 9 S.C.R.                                                        93

          Bhanei Prasad @ Raju v. State of Himachal Pradesh


                           Case Arising From
     CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Special Leave Petition
     (Criminal) No. 11587 of 2025
     From the Judgment and Order dated 03-07-2024 of the High Court
     of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla in CRA No. 562 of 2019.

                        Appearances for Parties

     Advs. for the Petitioner:
     Krishna Pal Singh, Ms. Anvita Aprajita, Mohan Singh Bais, Seemab
     Qayyum.

                Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

                                 Order

1.   Heard. Delay condoned.
2.   The present petition assails the judgment and final order dated
     03.07.2024 passed by the High Court of Himachal Pradesh at
     Shimla in Criminal Appeal No.562 of 2019, whereby the conviction
     and sentence of the petitioner under Section 6 of the Protection of
     Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter, ‘POCSO Act’)
     and Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code has been affirmed.
3.   The facts of the case reveal a story of unspeakable betrayal of trust
     by none other than the father of the victim, who stands convicted
     for repeatedly committing aggravated penetrative sexual assault
     upon his own minor daughter, who was just around ten years old
     at the time of the incident. The acts were not isolated incidents but
     sustained, deliberate assaults within the safety of the home, a place
     where every child expects protection.
4.   The Trial Court, upon meticulous evaluation of the oral testimony
     of the victim (PW3), the corroborating evidence of her elder sister
     (PW2), and the compelling forensic and medical records, had rightly
     returned a verdict of guilt. The High Court, in a well-reasoned
     judgment, has affirmed the conviction and imposed the sentence of
     life imprisonment, in addition to fine.
5.   The jurisprudence under the POCSO Act has evolved as a bulwark
     against the predatory crimes targeting the innocence of childhood.
94                                                           [2025] 9 S.C.R.

                          Supreme Court Reports


      Section 29 of the POCSO Act creates a statutory presumption of
      guilt, once foundational facts are established. In the present case,
      this presumption stood unrebutted. The victim’s testimony was
      unwavering, medically corroborated, and free from embellishment. Her
      disclosure, though delayed, was truthful and borne out of perennial
      trauma and threats she has undergone.
6.    It is now well settled that the testimony of a child victim, if found
      credible and trustworthy, requires no corroboration. The Courts below
      have not merely accepted the victim’s account, they have validated
      it through unimpeachable scientific evidence. The DNA report sealed
      the evidentiary chain and has dispelled all doubts in the prosecution
      case which is sought to be assailed by the petitioner.
7.    The argument raised before us is that the petitioner was falsely
      implicated due to strained domestic relationships and disapproval of
      romantic alliances of his daughters is completely hollow. No daughter,
      however aggrieved, would fabricate charges of this magnitude against
      her own father merely to escape household discipline.
8.    This Court has repeatedly underscored that in offences involving
      sexual abuse, especially against children, the trauma suffered by the
      victim is lifelong. The scars are not merely physical but psychological,
      cutting across every fibre of trust, safety, and dignity. When the
      perpetrator is none other than the father, the natural guardian, the
      crime assumes a demonic character.
9.    Such offences deserve nothing but the severest condemnation and
      deterrent punishment. To pardon such depravity under any guise
      would be a travesty of justice and a betrayal of the child protection
      mandate embedded in our constitutional and statutory framework.
10. As per ancient scriptures:
           “Yatra nāryastu pūjyante ramante tatra devatāḥ,
           yatraitaastu na pūjyante sarvāstatra aphalāḥ kriyāḥ.”
           “Where women are honoured, divinity flourishes; and
           where they are dishonoured, all acts become fruitless.”
      This verse reflects not merely a cultural principle but a constitutional
      vision. The dignity of women is non-negotiable, and our legal system
      must not permit repeated intrusion into that dignity under the guise
      of misplaced sympathy or alleged procedural fairness.
[2025] 9 S.C.R.                                                           95

          Bhanei Prasad @ Raju v. State of Himachal Pradesh


11. A prayer for interim relief of bail is also sought in the petition and our
    judicial conscience does not permit casual indulgence in a prayer for
    interim relief of bail where the conviction has been rendered after
    full-fledged trial, affirmed in appeal, and the testimony of the victim
    is clear, cogent, and duly corroborated. This Court has repeatedly
    held that in serious offences under the POCSO Act, particularly
    those involving familial betrayal of trust, relief cannot be granted as
    a matter of routine. Where two courts have concurrently found guilt
    and the findings are not shown to be perverse, interference under
    Article 136 is neither warranted nor justified in the present case.
12. Let it be stated unambiguously that entertaining of the present petition
    or remotely considering the grant of bail in a case of this nature,
    after the guilt has been proved and affirmed, would not merely
    undermine the majesty of the law, it would amount to a betrayal
    of the constitutional promise made to every child of this country. It
    would be, in the considered view of this Court, a judicial insult to the
    sanctity of womanhood and a blow to every mother who teaches
    her child to believe in justice.
13. When a father who is expected to be a shield, a guardian, a moral
    compass, becomes the source of the most severe violation of a
    child’s bodily integrity and dignity, the betrayal is not only personal
    but institutional. The law does not, and cannot, condone such acts
    under the guise of rehabilitation or reform. Incestuous sexual violence
    committed by a parent is a distinct category of offence that tears
    through the foundational fabric of familial trust and must invite the
    severest condemnation in both language and sentence. The home,
    which should be a sanctuary, cannot be permitted to become a site
    of unspeakable trauma, and the courts must send a clear signal
    that such offences will be met with an equally unsparing judicial
    response. To entertain a plea for leniency in a case of this nature
    would not merely be misplaced, it would constitute a betrayal of the
    Court’s own constitutional duty to protect the vulnerable. When a
    child is forced to suffer at the hands of her own father, the law must
    speak in a voice that is resolute and uncompromising. There can be
    no mitigation in sentencing for crimes that subvert the very notion
    of family as a space of security.
14. In such exceptional circumstances, this Court cannot rest content with
    the imposition of penal consequences alone. The arc of constitutional
96                                                          [2025] 9 S.C.R.

                          Supreme Court Reports


       justice, particularly under Article 142, extends beyond punishment to
       encompass rehabilitation, reparation, and the affirmation of human
       dignity. As held in Nipun Saxena v. Union of India1, this Court
       accepted and directed the implementation of the “Compensation
       Scheme for Women Victims/Survivors of Sexual Assault/Other Crimes,
       2018” framed by the National Legal Services Authority. Under the
       said Scheme, the maximum compensation prescribed for victims of
       rape is Rs.7,00,000/- (Rupees Seven Lakhs Only) which is to be
       enhanced by 50% in cases involving minor victims.
15. Having regard to the age of the victim at the time of the offence, the
    sustained nature of the abuse, and the constitutional obligation to
    provide meaningful redress, we direct that a sum of Rs.10,50,000/-
    (Rupees Ten Lakhs and Fifty Thousand only) be paid to the victim as
    compensation as per the Scheme by the State of Himachal Pradesh
    in the peculiar facts of the case. Though the victim has now attained
    the age of majority, we are of the considered view that in order to
    protect her future interest, some amount if ordered to be kept in a
    fixed deposit, it would secure her best interest. Hence, we direct
    that a sum of Rs.7,00,000/- (Rupees Seven Lakhs Only) be kept in
    a fixed deposit in any nationalised bank for a period of 5 years in
    the name of the victim and she would be entitled to withdraw the
    quarterly interest. The balance, Rs.3,50,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs
    and Fifty Thousand Only) shall be paid to her by transferring the said
    amount to her account, the details of which shall be furnished by her
    to the Member Secretary, Himachal Pradesh State Legal Services
    Authority. It is needless to state that on maturity of the fixed deposit,
    the proceeds thereof shall be transferred to her account, and this
    process shall be monitored by the Himachal Pradesh State Legal
    Services Authority.
16. This Court reiterates that justice must not be limited to conviction, it
    must, where the law so permits, include restitution. In awarding this
    compensation, we reaffirm the constitutional commitment to protect
    the rights and dignity of child survivors, and to ensure that the justice
    delivered is substantive, compassionate, and complete.
17. In view of our observations made above, we find no infirmity or
    perversity in the concurrent findings of the Courts below, the conviction


1     (2019) 2 SCC 703
[2025] 9 S.C.R.                                                        97

             Bhanei Prasad @ Raju v. State of Himachal Pradesh


     and sentence awarded by the courts below are found to be just, lawful
     and necessary. Hence, the Special Leave Petition stands dismissed
     in limine. Pending applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of.

     Result of the case: Special Leave Petition dismissed.




     †
         Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain