The Delhi High Court observed that it is important for courts to "imbibe the legislative wisdom" behind the enactment of the Protection of Children Against Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, to curb the offences against minors, especially sexual assault since they are increasing at an alarming rate.

The division bench, comprising of Justice Siddharth Mridul and Justice Anup J. Bhambhani while observing that rape is a horrific act that is repulsive both to the victim and to society as a whole, stated that "Nothing can be more heinous than a crime committed on a child. It is trite to state that it is necessary for the Courts to have a sensitive approach when dealing with cases of child rape. The effect of such a crime on the mind of the child is likely to be lifelong. A special safeguard has been provided for children in Article 39 of the Constitution of India which, inter alia, stipulates that the State shall, in particular, direct its policy towards securing that the tender age of the children is not abused and that children are given environment opportunities and facilities to develop in a healthy manner and in conditions of freedom and dignity; and that childhood and youth are protected against exploitation and against moral and material abandonment"

It was submitted on behalf of the state that "There is no gainsaying that rape is a heinous crime, not only abhorrent as against the victim but also against society at large. The offences against minors, more particularly sexual assault are increasing alarmingly and it is, therefore, necessary for the courts to imbibe the legislative wisdom. The plight of a victim and the shock suffered can be felt instinctively; as the victim of rape is left. devastated by the traumatic experience, as well as an unforgettable shame; being haunted by the memory of the horrific experience forcing her into a state of terrifying melancholia. The torment on the victim has the potential to corrode the poise and equanimity of any civilized society."

The court also emphasised the fact that it is the duty of the courts that in order to maintain consistency and to prevent any unforeseen or undesirable effects, they take special legislation "in the circumstances to which they owe their origin." It was further held that "It is the duty of the courts to consider such specialized legislation in the circumstances to which they owe their origin so as to ensure coherence and avoid any unintended and undesirable consequences."

The observations were made by the court as it upheld the man's conviction and life sentence for the 2012 rape of his niece, a one-year-old baby girl. The appellant was found guilty under section 376(2)(f) IPC and section 6 of POCSO Act read with sections 5 and 3 of POCSO Act. He was given a life imprisonment  October 31, 2019.

Advocate representing the appellant, submitted before the court that there was just the testimony of the victim's parents that was scrutinised by the prosecution to show his guilt. Additionally, he also argued that the parents' testimony was questionable because of their connection to the victim. The testimony cannot be verified. The court rejected the contention submitted by the appellant, noting that just because two witnesses are the prosecutrix's parents, they cannot be considered interested witnesses and that there is no evidence to show that they had any interest in using the appellant as a scapegoat for a horrible crime.