Here's a breakdown of a significant court decision from the Delhi High Court involving Darshan Mohar, who was found guilty of sexually assaulting a minor under laws meant to protect children and other related laws.
On December 10, 2025, the Delhi High Court confirmed that Darshan Mohar was guilty of sexually assaulting a minor. The case goes back to January 2020, when the victim, a 17-year-old girl, was assaulted by her uncle, Darshan Mohar, in Delhi. The assault was discovered when the victim was found to be pregnant in May 2020.
The victim lived with her family in Delhi. On the day of the incident, the victim was alone at home with Darshan Mohar when he assaulted her. The victim did not report the incident immediately because Darshan Mohar threatened her, and she was afraid of her father.
Initial Report: The victim's pregnancy was discovered during a hospital visit on May 4, 2020. This led to the police filing a report against Darshan Mohar.
Trial and Conviction: On December 12, 2024, the trial court found Darshan Mohar guilty under laws protecting children and other sections of the Indian Penal Code. He was sentenced to 20 years in prison.
Defense: Darshan Mohar's lawyer argued that there were inconsistencies in the victim's story and that she took too long to report the incident. They also suggested other possible explanations involving another person named Amit, which were not proven.
Prosecution: The prosecution relied on the victim's consistent story and medical evidence. The court noted that Darshan Mohar's relationship with the victim as her uncle made the crime even more serious.
Victim's Testimony: The court found the victim's story believable and consistent, even though there were small differences due to her emotional distress.
Medical Evidence: The victim's pregnancy supported her account of the assault, matching the timeline of events.
Presumption under POCSO: The court used certain legal assumptions under the child protection laws, which Darshan Mohar could not disprove.
The case highlighted problems with how DNA evidence was handled. The fetal material was not preserved correctly, making DNA testing impossible. This prompted the court to stress the importance of following proper guidelines for preserving evidence.
The court confirmed the guilty verdict and 20-year sentence, emphasizing the trustworthiness of the victim's story and the defense's failure to provide a believable alternative explanation. The judgment also called for better procedures in handling forensic evidence to avoid future issues.
