BS v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2025
Despite the lack of paternity, the presence of semen was sufficient for conviction. This aligns with the legal understanding that penetration alone suffices for the offence of rape under Section 375 IPC.
Judgement Details
Court
Delhi High Court
Date of Decision
28 September 2025
Judges
Justice Sanjeev Narula
Citation
Acts / Provisions
Section 13(1)(ia), Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
Section 25, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
Facts of the Case
-
The appellant (father of the victim) was convicted by the Trial Court in November 2024 for repeatedly raping his 17-year-old daughter.
-
The offences were reported in 2018, when the victim was discovered to be pregnant during a medical examination.
-
DNA analysis did not confirm paternity but confirmed presence of the father's semen in vaginal and cervical samples, supporting the allegation of sexual assault.
-
The father was sentenced to 20 years of rigorous imprisonment.
Issues
-
Whether the conviction was sustainable in the absence of paternity confirmation?
-
Whether a fixed-term sentence of 20 years was legally permissible under Section 6 of POCSO (pre-2019 amendment)?
-
Whether the sentence awarded was proportionate to the gravity of the offence?
Held
-
The Trial Court acted within its discretion in imposing a fixed term of 20 years under Section 6 POCSO, as it falls within the permissible range of “not less than 10 years, but which may extend to life.”
-
The act was repeated, involved threats and coercion, and breached the most sacred familial trust, justifying a punishment well above the minimum.
-
Sentencing is not a binary choice (minimum or life), but a graded exercise based on culpability and gravity.
Analysis
- The Court found the survivor’s testimony to be credible at its core, especially in light of corroborating DNA evidence.
- This reaffirms the principle that minor inconsistencies do not defeat the prosecution if core allegations remain intact.
- Despite the lack of paternity, the presence of semen was sufficient for conviction. This aligns with the legal understanding that penetration alone suffices for the offence of rape under Section 375 IPC.
- The Court provided a significant clarification on sentencing under Section 6 of the POCSO Act (pre-2019).
-
The Courts can impose fixed-term sentences between 10 years and life.
-
A binary view (10 years or life only) would collapse the sentencing scheme and limit judicial discretion unfairly.
- By highlighting the double gravity of a father raping his minor daughter, the Court emphasized the psychological harm and violation of trust, thereby justifying an enhanced sentence in the interest of deterrence, victim dignity, and social justice.