“When a child is condemned to suffer such agonizing degradation at the hands of her own progenitor, the voice of the law must resound with uncompromising, absolute fortitude,” observed a Special Court in Odisha, constituted under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (the 'POCSO Act'), while convicting a father for repeatedly committing rape and molestation on his minor daughter over a period of seven years.

While handing down the punishment of rigorous imprisonment for twenty years to the convict, Abhilash Senapati, Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge (POCSO), Jajpur observed–

“The allegations of rape in this particular case is not only the sexual ravishment by a perverse father but the unspeakable betrayal of trust by none other than the father of the victim. When perpetrator is the father, the crime assumes a demonic character. Such offences deserve nothing but the severest condemnation and deterrent punishment…When a paternal figure, ordained by nature and society to stand as an impenetrable shield, a vigilant guardian, and an unerring moral compass, transmutes instead into the author of the most harrowing violation of a child's bodily integrity and innate dignity, the resultant betrayal transcends the personal; it shatters the foundational institution of human trust.”

The accused, being the father of the victim/informant, allegedly started molesting her when she was aged merely 12-year-old in the year 2017. According to the prosecution, the accused repeatedly touched the private parts and breasts of the minor victim and forced her to hold his penis in order to masturbate. The victim allegedly protested against such act, but she was silenced by her father by the threat of murder, abandonment and financial deprivation.

When the victim turned 14-year-old in 2019 and was a student of Class-IX, the accused allegedly established sexual intercourse with her forcefully. When victim informed about bleeding from her private part and about the entire incident to her mother, she purportedly advised the victim to stay silent for the sake of family's prestige in the society.

The accused allegedly had sex with her minor daughter/victim on multiple occasions when she visited home from school hostel. When the victim joined a College in Keonjhar to pursue her intermediate course (+2), the accused went to her for almost eight to ten times over a period of two years under the guise of meeting and took her to a private lodge where he used to have sexual intercourse against her will. When she joined a College in Cuttack for pursuing her graduation (+3), the accused continued his carnal conduct by taking the victim to a lodge.

Being helpless, when the victim apprised the situation to his uncle, he arranged her marriage in 2024. Even subsequent to her marriage, the accused directed her to visit him by blackmailing to post her private and intimate photos as well as videos on social media. As per prosecution allegations, the accused once sent obscene and sexually explicit materials to the phone of victim's mother-in-law in order to blackmail the victim to submit to his desire.

Being harassed by such repeated intimidation, the victim allegedly attempted to commit suicide by ingesting phenyl and cutting her wrist. However, she was saved by medical intervention. After brief recovery when she narrated the ordeal to her father-in-law, he also allegedly tried to take advantage of her vulnerability and attempted to establish an illicit sexual relationship with her. Learning about the incidents, her husband expressed disinclination to continue the conjugal life and left her at her maternal uncle's house.

Subsequently, with the help of 'One Stop Centre-SAKHI', the victim went to the police station for registering an FIR. After thorough investigation, the police filed a charge-sheet against the accused-father for commission of offences under Sections 341, 294, 354, 354-A, 376(2)(f)(n), 506, and 34 of the IPC read with Sections 4(2), 6, 10, 12, and 15 of the POCSO Act, and Sections 67 and 67(A) of the IT Act.

The age and minority of the victim was proved through the school admission register, which reflected her date of birth as 10.03.2005, making her 12-year-old at the initial molestation and merely 14-year-old during the first sexual intercourse by the accused.

In order to bring home the charges against the accused, the prosecution heavily relied upon the lucent testimony of the victim. The victim remained consistent and clear not only in her statements recorded under Sections 180 and 183 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) but also in her deposition before the Court. The Court was satisfied and found her evidence to be heavily reliable when her version did not tilt even after thorough cross-examination by the defence.

By relying upon her testimony, the Court held that she was molested repeatedly from 2017 by her accused-father, who not only touched her breasts and vagina but also forced her through criminal intimidation to hold his penis for the purpose of masturbation. The fact of forceful, non-consensual and repeated sexual intercourse from the year 2017 till her marriage in 2024 was also held to be proved through her clear testimony.

Further, the evidence of the victim regarding repeated sex during her +2 education in Keonjhar was found to be corroborated by the testimony of the Manager of the lodge where the accused used to take the victim for such illicit purpose. The police also seized and produced the lodge register which clearly showed multiple entries in the name of the accused and the victim during the year 2022.

The victim also deposed that she had intimated about her harassment at the hand of her father to a male friend over telephone. The aforesaid friend was examined by the prosecution as PW-18, who corroborated the version of the victim. The Court found such evidence admissible under Section 6 of the Evidence Act as res gestae. Apart from that, the Court found multiple corroborations to the victim's evidence from other prosecution witnesses.

To disprove the prosecution allegation, the defence put-forth the argument that the victim had romantic relationship with PW-18 and as she did not get support for such relationship from her father, she hatched a plan to implicate him in such a heinous crime. However, the Court rejected such argument by observing –

“Even if one were to assume arguendo that a romantic liaison existed, it strains credulity to suggest that the mere rejection of a marriage proposal would induce a daughter to falsely implicate her own father in an offense as heinous as lifelong sexual abuse. Such a postulate defies natural human conduct and appears entirely devoid of truth… It needs no reiteration to say that in the present case the evidence of the prosecutrix remained consistent, reliable and trustworthy and defence did not succeed to create any doubt or suspicion on her testimony and in fact, the accused has created the entire false story at the cost of further attacking his daughter's chastity and honour by alleging her illicit relationship with PW 18.”

The defence also attempted to sabotage the prosecution case by taking the plea of long delay (7 years) in lodging the FIR. The Court nevertheless did not find such argument convincing enough to discard the prosecution version. The Judge notably remarked–

“In evaluating the matter at hand, this Court must confront a chilling reality: the principal accused is the biological father of the victim. Where the designated protector morphs into a sexual predator, subjecting a child to systematic ravishment from the tender age of twelve, it is both legally untenable and humanly impossible to expect the immediate initiation of criminal prosecution… At such a fragile, formative stage of life, a girl of tender years possesses neither the physiological maturity nor the psychological comprehension to fully grasp the egregious violations being inflicted upon her body—let alone by the very custodian charged with her sanctuary and survival. To demand immediate reporting in such circumstances is to ignore the profound trauma, cognitive dissonance, and absolute helplessness of a victim trapped in an abusive domestic hierarchy.”

Resultantly, while finding the accused guilty under Sections 376(2)(f) (rape by a guardian)/376(2)(n) (repeated rape)/354 (outraging modesty)/506(ii) (criminal intimidation) of the IPC and Sections 6 (aggravated penetrative sexual assault)/10 (aggravated sexual assault)/12 (sexual harassment) of the POCSO Act, the Court remarkably observed–

“The majesty of the law does not, and indeed cannot, countenance such egregious depravity under the benevolent guise of rehabilitation or reform. Incestuous sexual violence perpetrated by a parent constitutes a uniquely heinous category of offense one that violently tears through the foundational fabric of familial trust and demands the severest condemnation in both judicial language and punitive sentence. The home, which ought to be an inviolable sanctuary of peace and innocence, cannot be permitted to devolve into a cloistered site of unspeakable, lifelong trauma. To entertain even a whispered plea for leniency in a transgression of this nature would not merely be an exercise in misplaced mercy; it would constitute a dereliction of the Court's own sacred, constitutional duty to shield the inherently vulnerable.”

Accordingly, the accused was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for twenty (20) years under Section 6 of the POCSO Act in view of the provision of alternate punishment ordained under Section 42 of the said Act. Considering the severe trauma endured by the victim for years together, the Court deemed it proper to grant a compensation amount to the tune of Rs. 10,50,000/- (rupees ten lakhs and fifty thousand) as per the Odisha Victim Compensation (Amendment) Scheme, 2025.

Case No: CT (Spl.) POCSO No. 177 of 2024

Date of Judgment: June 25, 2026

Counsel for the State/Prosecution: Mr. Srinabash Sahu, Special Public Prosecutor

Counsel for the Accused: Mr. Arun Kumar Sahoo, Advocate