Bombay HC upholds life term for father convicted of raping minor daughter

The Bombay High Court on Wednesday (December 17, 2025) upheld the conviction and sentence of life imprisonment awarded to a Raigad man for repeatedly raping his 14-year-old daughter, observing that such crimes “must invite the severest condemnation” and that courts could not condone such acts under the guise of leniency. 

A Division Bench of Justices Manish Pitale and Manjusha Deshpande dismissed the appeal filed by Jagannath Pandurang Waghare, who had challenged the May 25, 2017, judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Mangaon, Raigad, in Special POCSO Case of 2016. The trial court had sentenced him to imprisonment for the remainder of his natural life under Section 376(2)(f) and (i) of the IPC and also convicted him under Sections 5(j)(ii) and 5(l) read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act, imposing 10 years’ rigorous imprisonment (to run concurrently). 

The prosecution said Waghare, an agricultural labourer, lived with his wife, minor daughter and son in a one-room house. In August 2015, he sexually assaulted his daughter 4–5 times at night while sleeping next to her. The assaults led to pregnancy, confirmed by doctors and later medically terminated at Mumbai’s Cama Hospital. The victim’s statement recorded at the hospital formed the basis of the FIR. 

Appellant’s counsel Pawan Mali argued that the conviction rested heavily on a DNA report linking him to the foetus, which should have been discarded due to failure to prove the chain of custody. He cited Supreme Court rulings in Irfan alias Bhayu Mevati vs State of MP, Prakash Nishad vs State of Maharashtra and Manoj vs State of MP, stressing that “purity of process” and examination of all persons involved in sample collection and transport were essential. He also claimed false implications by his wife and maternal uncle. 

The State, represented by Additional Public Prosecutor (APP) Sharmila Kaushik, countered that the victim’s testimony alone was sufficient to sustain conviction. “The evidence of the prosecutrix alone is enough in such cases and corroboration is not even necessary,” she argued, adding that the victim was only 14 years old and the appellant was her father. 

The Bench agreed that the prosecution had not examined crucial witnesses to establish the integrity of samples and had failed to put the DNA report to the accused under Section 313 CrPC. 

“This court has no other alternative but to completely discard the said report,” the judges said, terming the trial court’s reliance on it an error. 

However, the court held that the victim’s testimony, corroborated by her mother, was “sterling in quality” and sufficient to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. 

“Insistence on actual description of the act of penetration cannot be held as sine qua non for the court to believe the case of the victim,” the judgment noted, adding that minor omissions did not undermine her credibility. 

The Bench invoked Section 29 of the POCSO Act, which creates a presumption of guilt once foundational facts are established. 

“The testimony of the minor victim can be completely relied upon, the presumption stood triggered and the appellant failed to rebut it even on preponderance of probabilities,” the court said. 

Rejecting pleas for leniency, the judges cited the Supreme Court’s observations in Bhanei Prasad vs State of Himachal Pradesh, “When a father who is expected to be a shield, a guardian, a moral compass, becomes the source of the most severe violation… 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.” 

The court noted that under Section 376(2) IPC, life imprisonment means incarceration for the remainder of the convict’s natural life, leaving no scope for applying remission guidelines. It also referred to the 2013 and 2018 amendments to Section 376 IPC, noting that the statutory mandate is clear. 

“Such heinous crime, when committed by a father against his own daughter, has the tendency of destroying the basic fabric of familial life and trust,” the Bench observed, dismissing the appeal and upholding the trial court’s order in its entirety.