SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(SC) 2123

ARAVIND KUMAR, SANDEEP MEHTA
Bhanei Prasad @ Raju – Appellant
Versus
State Of Himachal Pradesh – Respondent


Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Krishna Pal Singh, AOR Ms. Anvita Aprajita, Adv. Mr. Mohan Singh Bais, Adv. Mr. Seemab Qayyum, Adv.

Judgement Key Points

Key Points: - The court upheld the conviction and imposed life imprisonment and fines for aggravated penetrative sexual assault on a minor daughter, emphasizing harsh sentencing and rejection of leniency. (!) (!) - The testimony of a credible child victim, when supported by medical/forensic evidence (DNA), requires no corroboration, and the DNA report strengthens the prosecution case. (!) - The Court dismissed the petition for bail, holding that interference is unwarranted where guilt has been proven and affirmed. (!) (!) - The Court directed compensation to the victim under the National Legal Services Authority scheme, amounting to Rs.10,50,000, with Rs.7,00,000 to be kept in fixed deposit for 5 years and the remaining Rs.3,50,000 to be paid to the victim, with arrangements for monitoring and eventual transfer on maturity. (!) (!) - The judgment emphasizes the protection of child dignity and condemns incestuous sexual violence, particularly by a parent, and rejects any leniency in sentencing. (!) (!) - The Court references constitutional obligations to provide meaningful redress and the use of the compensation scheme for women victims/survivors of sexual assault. (!) (!) - The conviction and sentence are upheld as just, lawful, and necessary; the Special Leave Petition is dismissed. (!)

Note: The references cited correspond to specific passages in the document.

What is the Court's stance on sentencing severity for aggravated penetrative sexual assault against a minor?

What is the Court's position on the use of victim credibility and corroboration in POCSO cases involving a familial perpetrator?

What are the directions regarding compensation and fixed deposit for the victim in this case?


Table of Content
1. dismissal of the special leave petition (Para 1 , 17)
2. assertion of conviction under pocso act (Para 2 , 3)
3. credibility of child victim testimony affirmed (Para 4 , 5 , 6)
4. court's view on rehabilitation and the impact of familial betrayal (Para 7 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 16)
5. importance of deterrent punishment in sexual offences (Para 8 , 9 , 10)
6. compensation for victims and protection of future interests (Para 11 , 15)

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 sus

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top