‘Vultures quenching lust’: Delhi court awards 20 years’ jail to 72-year-old ‘dada’ who sexually assaulted minor orphan girl

The court said it approached the sentencing on the basis that it is in the interest of justice and POCSO crimes should be punished. (Image enhanced using AI)

The remarks formed part of a strongly worded sentencing order passed a day after the same court convicted the accused on March 23.

Betrayal of trust: ‘Dada’ turned predator

• At the heart of the court’s reasoning was the egregious breach of trust.
• The victim, an eight-year-old orphan, reportedly addressed the accused as “dada” (grandfather), a term symbolising care, protection and affection.
• Instead, the accused exploited this position to prey upon the child.
• The court highlighted the stark 64-year age gap between the accused and the victim, calling it a critical aggravating factor that left the child “completely helpless.”
• The assault, the court said, not only violated the child’s bodily integrity but also “profanes the very reverence our society holds for elders,” eroding trust within families and communities.
• The victim used to call him ‘dada’ but he preyed upon her to quench his covetousness and selfish needs – his lust.
• The assault, is not only on the child, but it profanes the very reverence our society holds for elders, eroding the foundation upon which families and communities rest.
• This also shatters our notion that elders protect children.

Punishment should be proportionate to the gravity of the offence in POCSO cases. (Image enhanced using AI)

Interest of society

• Certain rape cases like Nirbhaya rape case, Kathua rape and murder case gained spotlight in the media, which resulted in hue and cry among the society.
• After these cases, certain amendments were made in the existing law.
• However, a court must not be swayed away by the emotions of the society ignoring the principles laid down by the Supreme Court.
• Thus, this court has approached the sentencing of the convict on the basis that it is in the interest of justice and crime should be punished.
• Such punishment should be proportionate to the gravity of the offence since excessive punishment does not serve the interest of justice nor those of society.

Conviction under stringent law

• The court found the man guilty under Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, which deals with aggravated penetrative sexual assault, along with provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).
• The matter arose from a case registered in December 2025, involving sexual assault on a child below 12 years, an offence for which the law prescribes a minimum punishment of 20 years, extendable to life imprisonment or even death in certain cases.

On the plea of old age, the court held that while it may evoke sympathy, it cannot override the need for justice in POCSO cases. (Image enhanced using AI)

• The court noted that it was bound by the statutory framework of the POCSO Act, which reflects the legislature’s intent to impose stringent penalties for such offences, particularly after amendments strengthening child protection laws in recent years.

Defence’s arguments dismissed

• The defence sought leniency on multiple grounds, including the convict’s advanced age, lack of prior criminal history, illiteracy, and medical ailments.
• However, the court rejected each of these arguments in unequivocal terms.
• On the plea of old age, the court held that while it may evoke sympathy, it cannot override the need for justice in cases involving grave crimes against children.
• Similarly, the argument that the accused was a first-time offender was dismissed as irrelevant in the face of the seriousness of the offence.

• The court also rejected the contention that absence of visible physical injuries should be treated as a mitigating factor, noting that rape is inherently a violent crime that leaves lasting psychological scars.
• “No form of rape is better than others,” the court observed, stressing that the trauma inflicted goes far beyond physical injury.
• Further, the defence argument that the act did not involve conventional forms of penetration was brushed aside, with the court reiterating that all forms of penetrative sexual assault are equally punishable under the POCSO Act.

Sentence: ‘Proportionate to gravity of crime’

• After weighing aggravating and mitigating factors, the court concluded that the former overwhelmingly outweighed the latter.
• It sentenced the convict to 20 years of rigorous imprisonment under Section 6 of the POCSO Act.
• Rs 50,000 fine, with an additional six months’ imprisonment in case of default.
• Two months’ simple imprisonment for criminal intimidation.
• All sentences are to run concurrently.
• The court emphasised that sentencing must strike a balance between the crime and the punishment, and in this case, the statutory minimum itself was justified given the brutality and circumstances of the offence.

Rs 13.5 lakh relief, rehabilitation measures

• Recognising the enduring impact of the crime, the court awarded Rs 13.5 lakh as compensation to the victim under applicable victim compensation schemes.
• While acknowledging that no monetary amount can undo the trauma or restore lost childhood, the court said compensation is an essential component of restorative justice.
• The order also mandated a series of rehabilitative measures.
• Trauma-informed psychological counselling for the child.

• Family counselling and parental guidance sessions.
• Continued education support up to Class 12.
• Provision for vocational or skill-based training.
• The Delhi POCSO court sentencing ruling noted reports indicating that the child continues to suffer from emotional distress, confusion and alienation even after the incident, underscoring the need for sustained psychological support.

‘Crime against entire society’

• Drawing from Supreme Court precedents, the court reiterated that rape is not merely an offence against an individual but a crime against society at large, particularly when the victim is a child.

• The Delhi POCSO court sentencing order stressed that such offences undermine the fundamental right to live with dignity and free from exploitation, as guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.