Delhi High Court Grants State Leave to Challenge Acquittal in Ten-Year-Old Girl’s Sexual Assault Case, Citing Testimony and POCSO Presumption Requiring Closer Judicial Scrutiny
Ten-Year-Old Girl Alleges Sexual Assault; Trial Court Acquits Accused Over Contradictions, but Delhi High Court Grants Prosecution Leave to Appeal for Detailed Reassessment of Evidence
Facts
On 30 November 2014, a 10-year-old girl alleged that Bajrang Bali Singh, who occupied another room in the same house, approached her while she was washing utensils on a balcony, made an inappropriate remark, touched her body and shoulder, and pressed her breast. She raised an alarm; her mother intervened and, according to the prosecution, was threatened. FIR No. 750/2014 was registered at Ashok Vihar Police Station under the POCSO Act and the Indian Penal Code. Charges were ultimately framed under Sections 9(m)/10 of the POCSO Act and Section 506 IPC. On 10 February 2016, the Sessions Court acquitted the accused, citing inconsistencies in the statements of the girl and her mother, possible false implication, and absence of independent corroboration. The State sought leave under Section 378(3) CrPC to challenge that acquittal.
Issues
Whether the State had disclosed a prima facie case or arguable grounds sufficient for leave to appeal against acquittal under Section 378(3) CrPC; whether inconsistencies in the child’s statements and the non-examination of independent witnesses required fuller appellate scrutiny; and what significance should be attached at this stage to the statutory presumption under Section 29 of the POCSO Act.
Petitioner’s Arguments
The State contended that the Trial Court had discounted the victim’s testimony over minor discrepancies between her Section 164 CrPC statement and deposition in court. It submitted that a reliable victim’s testimony may sustain conviction without independent corroboration, that the mother’s evidence should not be rejected merely because of her relationship with the victim, and that the suggestion of false implication was speculative. The prosecution also argued that the investigation could not be faulted for failing to produce independent witnesses who were not available at the spot.
Respondent’s Arguments
Bajrang Bali Singh supported the acquittal and invoked the double presumption of innocence following a trial-court verdict. He pointed to the omission, from the Section 164 statement, of the allegation that he pressed the girl’s breast, despite its appearance in her initial account and court testimony. He also relied on discrepancies between the girl’s and mother’s accounts, an existing dispute with the mother, and the failure to examine neighbours, including a woman identified as Sunita, who allegedly heard the account of the incident. He submitted that the evidence was not of sterling quality and the acquittal should not be reopened.
Analysis of the Law
Section 378(3) CrPC requires High Court leave before the State’s appeal from a Sessions Court acquittal can be entertained. At this preliminary stage, the test is whether the record raises a prima facie case or arguable issues warranting fuller consideration, not whether the acquittal must ultimately be reversed. Leave is neither automatic nor to be refused after conducting a complete merits determination. The Court also noted that prosecution under Section 9 of the POCSO Act attracts the presumption provided in Section 29; the consequences of that provision, alongside questions of credibility and corroboration, merit consideration in the appeal.
Precedent Analysis
In State of Maharashtra v. Sujay Mangesh Poyarekar, (2008) 9 SCC 475, the Supreme Court held that a leave court must assess whether prima facie or arguable points exist and should not pre-judge the acquittal’s ultimate sustainability. Where the evidence calls for deeper scrutiny or reappreciation, leave should be granted; a refusal must rest on stated reasons. The Delhi High Court also referred to Manoj Rameshlal Chhabriya v. Mahesh Prakash Ahuja, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 451, as reaffirming this approach.
Court’s Reasoning
Justice Saurabh Banerjee considered the testimony of the child victim together with her mother’s statement sufficient to raise a prima facie case for appellate examination. Whether the identified contradictions undermine their evidence, whether independent corroboration is necessary, and how Section 29 POCSO operates could not properly be resolved against the State at the leave stage. These matters justified an appeal on merits. The Court did not determine guilt or set aside the acquittal in this judgment.
Conclusion
The Delhi High Court allowed the State’s petition and granted leave to appeal against the acquittal dated 10 February 2016. The Registry was directed to register and renumber the matter as a criminal appeal and list it before the roster bench on 28 October 2026. The acquittal remains subject to the forthcoming appeal; no final appellate finding on guilt was rendered.
Case: State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) v. Bajrang Bali Singh
Court: High Court of Delhi at New Delhi
Case Number: CRL.L.P. 435/2016 with CRL.M.A. 12786/2016; CNR No. DLHC011980592016
Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Saurabh Banerjee
Date: 13 October 2026 (reserved on 5 October 2026)
Result: Leave to appeal against the POCSO acquittal granted under Section 378(3) CrPC; Registry to register criminal appeal; listed for 28 October 2026. Acquittal not overturned at this stage.
