The Delhi High Court on Tuesday dismissed the appeal of a couple who had been convicted of repeatedly beating and sexually abusing a minor girl. The bench of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma upheld the sentences pronounced by the trial court and clearly said that the accused cannot be granted any relief.
Background
This case came to light in August 2021 when, after a PCR call, police found a six-year-old girl with severe burn injuries. During medical examination at DDU Hospital, the girl revealed that her father H used to beat her with hot tongs, hang her from a ceiling fan, and sexually assault her. Her mother R was accused of beating her, kicking her, and keeping her hungry.
Read also:- Bombay High Court Rules on TDS Dispute Between Revenue and Dr. Balabhai Nanavati Hospital, Remands AMC Issue
Later, in a statement before the Magistrate under Section 164 CrPC and in testimony before the court, this picture became even clearer. The trial court held R and H guilty under Section 75 of the Juvenile Justice Act (cruelty to a child) and Section 323 IPC (voluntarily causing hurt). In addition, H was convicted under Section 6 of the POCSO Act (aggravated sexual assault) and Section 376 IPC (rape).
Court's Observations
In appeal, the defence argued that the girl’s testimony was "tutored" and that false allegations were made due to enmity with an NGO. They also pointed out contradictions in her statements and shortcomings in the medical report. They further claimed that the girl had actually named her biological father.
Read also:- Andhra Pradesh High Court Orders Police Protection for Realme to Move Stock Blocked by Worker Protests
But the High Court rejected these arguments, stating
"Such a small child cannot give such detailed testimony if she was only tutored."
The judge also said that there is clear consistency between the girl’s testimony and the nine injuries recorded in the medical report.
On the issue of naming her biological father, the Court clarified:
"It is absolutely possible that she mistakenly took the name of her biological father for her adoptive father. In all later statements her words remained absolutely clear and consistent."
Justice Sharma also raised serious questions over the investigation. She remarked
"Neither the police nor the trial court attempted to trace the biological parents of the girl, nor was the legality of adoption ever examined. This is a serious lapse and leaves behind the suspicion that the child might have been a victim of trafficking."
Decision
After considering all the evidence, the High Court upheld the trial court’s decision. The sentence will remain the same one year rigorous imprisonment under Section 323 IPC, two years rigorous imprisonment under Section 75 of the JJ Act, and for H, 20 years rigorous imprisonment under Section 6 of the POCSO Act.
"The conviction and sentence are completely correct. The appeals are dismissed," Justice Sharma ordered.
Case Title:- R vs. State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.
