Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 9th April, 2026
MOHD. ZAMIL .....Appellant
Through: Mr. S.S Ahluwalia, with Ms. Saniya Zehra, and Mr. Prince Balyan, Advs. along with Appellant in person
Through: Mr. Ritesh Kumar Bahri, APP with Ms. Divya Yadav, Adv.
JUDGMENT
1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.
2. The present appeal has been filed by the Appellant- Mohd. Zamil under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter, ‘CrPC’) challenging the judgment dated 7th August, 2018 (hereinafter, ‘impugned judgment’) and order on sentence dated 10th August, 2018 passed by the ld. Additional Sessions Judge (North West)-01, Special Court, POCSO, Rohini District Court in Sessions Case No. 123/2014 arising out of FIR NO. 139/2014 registered at P.S. Kanjhawala.
3. Vide the impugned judgment, the Appellant has been convicted for offences punishable under Section 6 read with Sections 5(l) and 5(n) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter, ‘POCSO Act’) and Section 506(i) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter, ‘IPC’). The Appellant has been sentenced vide order on sentence dated 10th August, 2018 in the following terms: “(i) For the offence u/s 506 (i) IPC, the convict Mohd. Zamil is sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of two years along with a fine of Rs. l,000/-(Rs. One thousand only), in default of payment of fine, to undergo S.I for one month.
(ii) For offence u/s 6 of POCSO Act, the convict Mohd.
Zamil is sentenced to life imprisonment, along with fine of Rs. 10,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for six months.”
4. The allegation against the Appellant was that he had repeatedly indulged in sexual assault of his own daughter (hereinafter, ‘Prosecutrix’), who was a minor. On 22nd February, 2014, the prosecutrix was taken by her mother to the hospital wherein, she was found to be pregnant. Initially, the prosecutrix had falsely implicated a friend, however, thereafter she had made a statement that she was repeatedly subjected to sexual assault by her own father.
5. Upon the incident being reported, the exhibits were seized from the victim i.e., the prosecutrix and the same were sent to Forensic Science Laboratory (hereinafter, ‘FSL’) on 25th February, 2014. The FSL Reports which were prepared, revealed that the DNA of the foetus matched with the DNA of the father of the prosecutrix. Thus, the Trial Court came to the conclusion that the offences under Sections 5 and 6 of the POCSO Act were made out.
6. Insofar as the date of birth of the prosecutrix was concerned, in her school records, the date of birth was recorded as 15th October, 1999 whereas in her Aadhar Card which was prepared during the course of the trial of the case, the date of birth was recorded as 15th October, 1996. The Trial Court went by the school records and observed that the Aadhar Card was made at the instance of the mother who was also making an attempt to not completely disclose the true facts.
7. Further, the prosecutrix had not reported the incident contemporaneously in October-November of 2013 as per her testimony. The prosecutrix in her statements stated that she was repeatedly threatened by her father that he would stop taking care of them and also would not give the monthly expenses. The Trial Court has extracted the testimony of the prosecutrix in the impugned judgment. The relevant portion of the impugned judgment reads as under: “PW-8 is the victim herself who stated that she was working in an NGO where she came in touch with Honey Singh and became friendly with him. Neither Honey Singh nor her father had committed anything wrong with her and she does not want to tell the name of person who raped her. She stated that her mother took her to the hospital and her statement was recorded twice in the court by one judge on 26.02.2014 and on 03.03.2014. She was declared hostile by Ld. APP where she denied having made any statement to the police that Honey Singh or her father had committed any wrong act with her. She however admitted that "Police wali aunty ne kaha ki tu kisi ka bhi naam likhwa de to case khatam ho jayega isiliye pahle meine Honey Singh ka naam likhwa diya tha. Papa ka naam meine baad main likhwaya jab meri dadi wagera jhagda karene lagi…… Meine judge sahab ko apne 03.03.2014 ke bayan main bataya tha ki mere papa daru pee kar aaye aur unhone bola ki agar mein kisi ko bataungi to tun logo ka kharcha nahin milega aur ghar se bhi nikal diye jayoge aur uske baad papa ne mere saath sharirk sambandh banaye aur aise papa ne mere saath teen baar kiya…. Ye bhi kahana theek hai ki mein aur meri mother nahin chahte the ke mere papa ka naam aaye…. doctor ko apne aap kuchh nahin bataya." In her cross examination by defence counsel, she admitted her date of birth mentioned in her Aadhar card as 15.10.1996 EX.PW8/DX[1] and further that her date in the Aadhar card is correct and not in the school record and her father had not committed any wrong act with her and her father has been falsely implicated in this case.”
8. The prosecution proved its case by producing PW-8 i.e., the prosecutrix, PW-15 i.e., the mother of the prosecutrix as also PW-4 i.e., Dr. Purnima. The Trial Court perused the DNA Reports as also the date of birth records of the prosecutrix and came to the conclusion that at the time of incident either by the school records or on the basis of the Aadhar Card, the prosecutrix would be a minor. The findings of the Trial Court are set out below:
9. The submission of Mr. Ahluwalia, ld. Counsel for the Appellant is that in the present case, the FSL report being there, the Appellant is only praying for some leniency as he has four other daughters and one son, all of whom are very young and unmarried. Ld. Counsel for the Appellant submits that the Appellant himself is 61 years of age and his wife is also specially abled.
10. On the other hand, Mr. Bahri, ld. APP submits that this is a case where no leniency deserves to be shown as the present case is not one of sexual assault but of repeated sexual assaults coupled with threats, pressure, coercion and duress. Ld. APP submits that the prosecutrix has undergone enormous mental pain and agony and the Appellant, who is the father, is expected to take care of her daughter. Accordingly, the Appellant having committed the crime, no leniency ought to be shown.
11. The Court has heard Mr. Ahluwalia, ld. Counsel appearing for the Appellant through legal aid and Mr. Bahri, ld. APP.
12. The testimony of the prosecutrix is completely clear and there is no doubt in respect of her testimony. Secondly, the testimony of the PW-4, Dr. Purnima i.e., Doctor at Lok Nayak Hospital also shows that initially, the prosecutrix only complained of pain in the abdomen, however, upon being examined, the victim had enormous pain and post-partum stress as well. PW- 4 in her statement also states that the prosecutrix had initially not given the history of sexual assault by her father. The relevant portion of the said statement reads as under:- “On 19.02.2014, I was posted at Lok Nayak Hospital as above. On that day, patient i.e. victim A d/o Mohd. Zamil, age 13 years, female, was brought to the Gyne Casualty Department of the hospital by one Ct. Ajay and mother of the patient for medical examination. Initially the patient and her mother did not give any other history or complaint except that of pain in abdomen. After the pregnancy of the patient was revealed during routine tests conducted in the hospital, then the patient and her mother gave history of sexual contact with a friend of the patient whose name was not revealed. The patient was examined by me and Dr. Usha Manaktala (unit head), vide MLC Ex.PW-4/A which is in my handwriting and bears my signatures at point "A". On 22.02.2014 itself the patient and her mother gave consent for termination of the pregnancy of the patient. Accordingly, endorsement regarding the same was made on the MLC at point "X" and the police was also informed. When the police officials came at about 3:00 PM, the patient was having uterine contractions and pain in abdomen and was not fit for statement. The endorsement in this regard was given at point encircled "Y" by Dr. Jenny, who was SR Gyne (Casualty) on duty at that time. I can identify handwriting and signatures of Dr. Jenny as I have seen her writing and signing during the course of my official duties. The police officials again came to the hospital to record the statement of patient - victim on 23.02.2014. I examined the patient and found that patient was not fit for statement as she was having pain in abdomen and post partum stress. I gave my endorsement in this regard at point encircled "Z" on MLC and appended my signatures at point "A-1" thereupon. Court Ques.: Are you aware when the police recorded statement of the patient / victim ? Ans. No, since the statement of the patient / victim was not recorded in my presence by the police. The police, however, did not approach me after 23.02.2014 to find out about the fitness of the patient to give statement. Court Ques.: If the patient had been unfit for statement after 23.02.2014, would the endorsement regarding it have been made on the MLC Ex.PW-4/A itself ? Ans. It is correct.
XXXXXX By Sh. Praveen Tyagi, proxy counsel for Ms. Urmila Yadav, LAC for accused. It is correct that the patient / victim and her mother never gave history of sexual assault on the victim by her father.”
13. The pregnancy was thereafter terminated with the consent of both the prosecutrix and her mother.
14. The Trial Court in the impugned judgment has also placed reliance upon the FSL Report. The said report concludes that the DNA of the foetus matched with the Appellant and not with the other suspect whose name was initially given by the prosecutrix. The FSL Report which is on record and exhibited as Ex. PW - 14/G dated 29th September, 2014 gives the following conclusion: “The DNA profile (STR analysis) performed in the source of exhibits '2' (i.e sample blood gauze of accused Jamil@Baigen received in FSL vide FSL 2014/DNA- 2775) ‘3' (i.e blood on gauze of suspect Yogender@Honey Singh received in FSL vide FSL 2014/DNA- 1550) '5'( i.e foetus received in FSL vide FSL 2014/DNA-1408) are sufficient to conclude that the DNA profile from the source of exhibit '2' (i.e sample blood gauze of accused Jamil@Baigen received in FSL, vide. FSL. 2014/DNA-2775) is matching with DNA profile generated from the source of exhibit ‘5’ (i.e. foetus ‘3’ (i.e.e blood on gauze of suspect Yogender@Honey Singh received in FSL Vide FSL 2014/DNA- 1550) is not matching the DNA profile generated from the source of exhibit '5'(i.e foetus received in FSL vide FSL 2014/DNA-1408).”
15. The school record of the prosecutrix has also been exhibited and therein, the date of birth of the prosecutrix is recorded as 15th October, 1999. On the overall conspectus of the facts, it is clear that the prosecutrix was subjected to sexual assault by her own father, from whom she had also become pregnant.
16. The present case is fully covered by the decision of this Court in DRY v. State NCT of Delhi, 2026: DHC:448-DB where under similar circumstances, the Court had observed that no leniency ought to be shown in such cases. The relevant portion of the said decision reads as under:
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.”
31. A ld. Single Judge of this Court, in the decision in BS v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2025: DHC:8647 while upholding a conviction under similar circumstances observed as under:
32. The social circumstances and the economic status of the family may have compelled the Prosecutrix and her mother to give contradictory statements or to turn hostile. However, in such cases the Court cannot completely ignore the scientific evidence which has come on record. In the present case, the DNA testing, being conclusive and unimpeachable evidence establishing the factum of physical relationship of the Appellant with the minor daughter, leaves no scope for doubt, and accordingly, the conviction of the Appellant cannot be faulted.
33. The provisions of the POCSO Act clearly lead to a deeming conclusion that the Appellant is guilty of the offences charged, and in fact, the same constitutes a gruesome offence, considering the relationship between the victim and the Appellant being that of father and daughter.
34. A father who is supposed to safeguard the safety and security of his own daughter cannot be shown any relaxation in such cases. The presumption under Section 29 of the POCSO Act applies wholly in the present case.
35. In the opinion of this Court, the application seeking suspension of the sentence is completely meritless. In fact, the appeal itself is meritless.
36. The impugned judgement deserves to be confirmed. Ordered accordingly.”
17. The conviction of the Appellant is fully tenable and does not warrant any interference. Appellant is also present in the Court. Coming to the aspect of sentence, ld. Counsel for the Appellant has given various mitigating circumstances including his age, five more children, whom he has to take care of, the fact that his only income is from being a rickshaw puller and that his wife is also specially abled.
18. In the present case, the sentence that has been awarded to the Appellant is life imprisonment. Considering the nature of the offence, the Court is not inclined to reduce the sentence. However, the mitigating circumstances can be relied upon by the Appellant at the time of seeking commutation of sentence under Section 55 of the IPC read with Section 433 Cr.P.C.
19. Accordingly, the conviction and the sentence awarded vide impugned judgment dated 7th August, 2018 and order on sentence dated 10th August, 2018 respectively are confirmed.
20. The name of the Appellant, the prosecutrix as also her mother shall also be redacted from all the uploaded orders and the documents.
21. The appeal is disposed of in the above terms. Pending applications, if any, are also disposed of.
PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUDGE MADHU JAIN JUDGE APRIL 9, 2026/ys/ck