Delhi High Court Acquits Man in Minor Boy’s Sexual Assault Case; Finds Medical Evidence, Delayed Disclosure, Family Quarrel and Arrest Contradictions Created Reasonable Doubt
Delhi High Court Sets Aside Child Sexual Assault Conviction; Says Absence of Injury Alone Is Insufficient but Cumulative Evidence Created Reasonable Doubt
Facts
The appellant, Deepu @ Deepak, challenged his conviction in Sessions Case No. 128/2014 for offences under Sections 342, 363, 377 and Part I of Section 506 IPC, as well as Section 6 of the POCSO Act. The trial court had convicted him on 26 August 2017.
The prosecution alleged that on 26 July 2014 at about 2:00 PM, the appellant kidnapped a 10-year-old boy from a street near his home, took him to a jhuggi at Kalyanpuri, wrongfully confined him, subjected him to anal sexual assault and threatened to beat him if he disclosed the incident.
The trial court sentenced the appellant, inter alia, to 10 years’ rigorous imprisonment under Section 377 IPC and 10 years’ rigorous imprisonment under Section 6 POCSO, with the sentences directed to run concurrently.
Issues
The principal issue before the Delhi High Court was whether the prosecution had proved the offences against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt and whether the conviction and sentence could therefore be sustained.
The Court examined the proof of the child’s age, consistency of his versions, medical evidence, delay in disclosure, absence of the FSL report, possible false implication arising from a neighbourhood dispute, and contradictions concerning the appellant’s arrest.
Appellant’s Arguments
The appellant challenged the prosecution’s proof of the victim’s age, arguing that the school record was based merely upon an affidavit submitted by the parents and was unsupported by a municipal birth certificate or other government document.
He further argued that the medical evidence did not corroborate the alleged assault. The MLC recorded no bleeding, bruising, injury, tenderness or swelling around the anus, and the anal tone was normal. Although an anal swab was collected, no FSL report was produced.
The defence also emphasised the approximately six-day delay in reporting the incident and discrepancies concerning the circumstances of the appellant’s arrest.
Finally, the appellant alleged false implication because he had supported another person during a quarrel involving the victim’s family.
Respondent’s Arguments
The State argued that the victim’s age had been adequately established through school admission records and related documents.
It submitted that the absence of injuries was unsurprising because the medical examination occurred about six days after the alleged incident.
The prosecution also argued that the discrepancy regarding arrest was immaterial because the police witness who testified about the arrest had not been cross-examined, leaving his evidence unchallenged.
According to the State, the neighbourhood quarrel was separate from the sexual assault allegation and furnished no sufficient basis for false implication.
Analysis of the Law
On the victim’s age, the High Court rejected the defence challenge.
The school records consistently recorded his date of birth as 11 February 2003. There was no evidence suggesting that the parental affidavit or school records were fabricated, and the relevant witnesses were not effectively challenged regarding their authenticity.
The Court therefore held that the prosecution had established that the child was approximately 11 years and five months old at the time of the alleged incident and was consequently below 12 years of age.
However, proving minority did not by itself establish the alleged sexual assault. The prosecution still had to establish the substantive offences beyond reasonable doubt.
The Court expressly recognised that absence of external injury by itself cannot justify disbelieving a child victim. But where the prosecution’s specific account involved prolonged painful anal assault, continuing pain at the time of disclosure, and other inconsistencies, the medical findings became relevant in evaluating the overall reliability of the prosecution case.
Precedent Analysis
The appellant relied upon Navin Dhaniram Baraiye v. State of Maharashtra in support of his challenge to the conviction.
The Court also referred to Moidu K. v. State of Kerala while dealing with the trial court’s failure to conduct the hearing contemplated under Section 232 Cr.P.C. It held that such non-compliance does not automatically vitiate a trial unless serious and substantial prejudice is shown. No such prejudice was demonstrated in the present case.
Ultimately, however, the acquittal was primarily based upon the Court’s appreciation of the cumulative evidentiary deficiencies rather than any single precedent.
Court’s Reasoning
The High Court identified significant inconsistencies concerning when and why the child disclosed the alleged assault.
The FIR stated that the child remained silent because of the threat and disclosed the incident on 1 August 2014 when he experienced anal pain. His Section 164 statement, however, did not state that subsequent pain triggered the disclosure.
The father’s evidence created a further contradiction. At one stage, he stated that on the evening of 26 July itself his wife told him that the child was experiencing anal pain and the child disclosed the incident. Yet he also stated that the incident was disclosed about a week later. The Court found that these versions could not coexist, and the prosecution had not clarified the contradiction.
The medical evidence also assumed significance. The child alleged that the anal assault occurred on the floor for approximately half an hour, caused severe pain during the incident and that he again experienced pain when he disclosed it about a week later. Yet the examination revealed no tenderness, soreness, discolouration, bruising, injury or other corresponding findings. The Court held that, in these particular circumstances, the medical evidence raised doubt about whether anal penetration had occurred as alleged.
The Court also noted that although a rectal swab had been collected, there was no evidence that it had been sent to the FSL and no FSL report was produced, with no explanation from the prosecution.
Another material circumstance was the neighbourhood quarrel. The child admitted that his parents had quarrelled with the jhuggi owner and that the appellant had supported the other side and abused his parents. The High Court held that the possibility that the FIR had been lodged in the backdrop of this quarrel could not be completely ruled out, particularly in the absence of supporting medical evidence.
Finally, there was an unexplained contradiction concerning the appellant’s arrest. The child stated that the appellant had been brought to the police station on 1 August and later released, whereas the police evidence stated that he was arrested from Bhangal Village, Noida, during the intervening night of 2–3 August 2014. The Court treated this as an additional circumstance adding to the cumulative doubt.
Conclusion
The Delhi High Court held that the prosecution evidence, viewed cumulatively, was insufficient to establish the offences beyond reasonable doubt.
It therefore extended the benefit of doubt to the appellant and held that his conviction and sentence under Sections 342, 363, 377 and Part I of Section 506 IPC and Section 6 POCSO were unsustainable.
The appeal was allowed, the appellant was acquitted of all charges, and the Court directed that he be set at liberty and his bail bond cancelled.
Case Details
Case: Deepu @ Deepak v. State
Court: Delhi High Court
Case Number: CRL.A. 83/2018
CNR: DLHC014960862017
Judge: Justice Chandrasekharan Sudha
Reserved: 31 August 2026
Pronounced: 9 September 2026
Result: Appeal allowed; convictions under Sections 342, 363, 377 and 506 Part I IPC and Section 6 POCSO set aside; appellant acquitted
