Court’s Decision
The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction and sentence awarded to the appellant by the trial court for offences under Sections 342, 365, 506, 376 IPC and Section 4 of the POCSO Act. The Court held that the testimony of the 13-year-old child victim was reliable, coherent, and consistent, and found corroboration in the forensic evidence. It further ruled that once the foundational facts were established, the presumption under Section 29 of the POCSO Act squarely applied, and the appellant failed to rebut the presumption.
Facts
The prosecution case was that on 1 December 2017, the minor victim, aged 13 years, while going to her grandmother’s house, was accosted by the appellant. He gagged her mouth with a cloth, forcibly took her to his house, threatened to kill her, confined her, and committed rape. After the act, the victim managed to escape by hitting the appellant, locked him in the room, and called her father. The family apprehended the appellant and handed him over to the police.
Medical examination was conducted the same day, and forensic samples were collected. During trial, the prosecution examined 15 witnesses, including the victim (PW-1), her parents (PW-2, PW-3), grandmother (PW-4), and uncle (PW-13). The child victim’s testimony described the incident in detail, including the act of penetrative sexual assault. The medical and forensic reports corroborated her account, showing semen traces on her clothes and saliva on the handkerchief used to gag her.
The defence claimed false implication due to alleged monetary disputes arising from a past accident involving the victim’s father and the appellant. He further raised an alibi, claiming he was away at the time. His wife and brother supported his defence, but no documentary evidence of the alleged monetary dispute or accident-related expenses was produced.
Issues
- Whether the testimony of the child victim was credible and sufficient to sustain conviction.
- Whether absence of semen or injury in the MLC negated the case of penetrative sexual assault.
- Whether the appellant successfully rebutted the presumption under Section 29 of the POCSO Act.
Petitioner’s Arguments
The appellant argued that the victim’s testimony was inconsistent and unreliable, marred by contradictions about her reason for visiting her grandmother’s house. He submitted that the medical report did not reveal fresh injuries or semen in the vaginal swabs, which cast doubt on the allegation of rape. He emphasized that there were monetary disputes between him and the victim’s father relating to medical expenses from a prior accident, which motivated the false case. He further claimed improbabilities in the narration of events, including the presence of a passerby who was never examined as a witness. At the appellate stage, he also attempted to rely on an alibi, asserting that he had been away from home during the alleged incident.
Respondent’s Arguments
The State and counsel for the victim contended that the child victim’s testimony was cogent, consistent, and trustworthy. They emphasized that her statement inspired confidence and was corroborated by forensic findings—semen on her underwear and pajami, saliva on the handkerchief, and DNA profiles linking the appellant. They further submitted that minor discrepancies in her testimony were natural considering her age and the lapse of time before deposition. It was argued that the appellant failed to provide credible evidence of the alleged monetary dispute and his alibi was an afterthought.
Analysis of the Law
The Court noted that under Section 118 of the Indian Evidence Act, a child witness is competent if able to understand questions and give rational answers. Citing Dattu Ramrao Sakhare v. State of Maharashtra (1997) 5 SCC 341, the Court reiterated that child witness testimony can form the sole basis of conviction if found reliable.
On the presumption under Section 29 of the POCSO Act, the Court emphasized that once the prosecution proves foundational facts, the burden shifts to the accused. It relied on Sambhubhai Raisangbhai Padhiyar v. State of Gujarat (2025) 2 SCC 399 and Veerpal v. State (2024 SCC OnLine Del 2686), both affirming that the presumption operates unless the accused rebuts it by credible defence. The appellant’s defence, based on monetary dispute and alibi, was unsupported by evidence and inconsistent.
Precedent Analysis
- Dattu Ramrao Sakhare v. State of Maharashtra – Established that a child witness’s testimony, if reliable, can be the sole basis for conviction. Applied to affirm the credibility of the victim.
- Sambhubhai Raisangbhai Padhiyar v. State of Gujarat – Held that Section 29 of the POCSO Act comes into operation once foundational facts are proved. Applied to shift burden on the accused after proof of penetrative assault.
- Veerpal v. State (Delhi HC) – Clarified that the presumption under Section 29 is rebuttable only through credible evidence, not mere conjecture. Applied to reject appellant’s weak defence.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court reasoned that the child victim’s testimony was not only consistent but also corroborated by forensic evidence. While semen was not found in the vaginal swab, its detection on her underwear and pajami, as well as saliva on the handkerchief, provided strong corroboration. Minor discrepancies in her deposition, given after one year, were natural and did not undermine her credibility.
The Court dismissed the defence of monetary dispute as unsubstantiated. The appellant’s alibi was raised belatedly and contradicted by his own family members’ depositions. The Court emphasized that “failure in some aspects of investigation does not discredit trustworthy testimony” and reiterated that once prosecution proved foundational facts, Section 29 POCSO presumption operated, which the appellant failed to rebut.
Conclusion
The High Court concluded that the prosecution successfully established the foundational facts of rape and confinement of the minor. The presumption under Section 29 POCSO applied, and the appellant failed to dislodge it. The testimony of the child victim, corroborated by forensic reports, was found reliable. The appeal was accordingly dismissed, and the conviction and sentences imposed by the trial court were affirmed.
Implications
This ruling reinforces the evidentiary value of child victim testimony in sexual assault cases. It underscores that minor discrepancies are immaterial if the overall account inspires confidence. The judgment strengthens the application of Section 29 POCSO, placing a heavy burden on the accused to rebut presumptions once foundational facts are established. It also clarifies that absence of semen in vaginal swabs does not negate rape if other corroborative evidence exists.
FAQs
Q1: Can a child victim’s testimony alone sustain conviction in sexual assault cases?
Yes. The Court held that a child’s testimony, if credible and reliable, can form the sole basis of conviction even without independent corroboration.
Q2: What is the role of Section 29 of the POCSO Act?
Section 29 creates a presumption that the accused committed the offence once the prosecution proves foundational facts. The burden shifts to the accused to rebut this presumption.
Q3: Does absence of semen or injury in medical reports mean rape did not occur?
No. The Court clarified that non-detection of semen in vaginal swabs does not nullify rape allegations if forensic evidence from clothing or corroborating testimony establishes the assault.
Also Read: Kerala High Court Bars Summary Eviction After 30 Years’ Possession — “State Must First Prove Title Before Civil Court”
