Court’s Decision
In a significant judgment, the Delhi High Court, in CRL.A. 754/2024, upheld the conviction of the appellant for the offences of rape and aggravated penetrative sexual assault on a 5-year-old child. The Court dismissed the appeal filed under Section 415(2) read with Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 challenging the judgment dated 27.09.2023 and the order on sentence dated 04.03.2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-04 (POCSO), South District, Saket Courts, New Delhi.
Justice Amit Sharma, while affirming the conviction, held that:
“The main testimony is of the survivor which has been corroborated by the MLC as well as FSL report on record.”
The appellant was sentenced to:
- 11 years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of ₹10,000 (with 30 days’ simple imprisonment in default) under Section 6 of the POCSO Act,
- 3 years rigorous imprisonment under Section 506 IPC, and
- ₹5 lakhs compensation to the survivor under the Delhi Victim Compensation Scheme, 2018.
Facts
The incident occurred on 30 October 2015, when the 5-year-old survivor and her younger brother were playing near the staircase at their home. They went missing around 1:00 PM. The survivor’s elder sister, while searching, witnessed through a window that the appellant (the survivor’s maternal uncle) had removed his trousers and was engaged in a sexual act with the child, who was naked.
The survivor’s parents forcibly entered the locked room and rescued the child. She immediately disclosed that the appellant had inserted his penis into her vagina and also threatened to kill her if she screamed. A jute bag, allegedly used by the appellant to clean himself, was recovered and later tested positive for his semen. The MLC recorded a small hymenal tear and bruising.
The FIR was registered under Sections 376 and 506 IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act. The appellant was arrested the same day. Statements of the survivor and her mother were recorded under Section 164 CrPC. The trial culminated in the appellant’s conviction.
Issues
- Whether the testimony of a minor survivor can be considered credible in the face of alleged contradictions?
- Whether the inconsistencies in medical and forensic evidence weaken the prosecution’s case?
- Whether the statutory presumption under Sections 29 and 30 of the POCSO Act was rebutted?
- Whether the trial court rightly concluded that the appellant committed aggravated penetrative sexual assault under Sections 5(m) and 5(n) of the POCSO Act?
Petitioner’s Arguments
The appellant challenged the conviction on the following grounds:
- There were material contradictions in the survivor’s statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164 CrPC and her deposition before the trial court—particularly regarding allegations of bleeding, injury to the finger, and whether the room was locked.
- The survivor admitted to being tutored by her mother on what to say before the police and the court.
- The MLC (Ex. PW-12/A) did not indicate active bleeding or fresh bruises. Thus, the medical evidence did not support allegations of rape.
- The FSL report (Ex. PW-9/A) linking the appellant’s semen to the jute bag was unreliable due to alleged lack of proper chain of custody.
- There existed family disputes, particularly concerning property ownership and marriage objections, which allegedly motivated the false complaint.
- The appellant relied on the following case laws:
- Chaggan Dame v. State of Gujarat, (1993) Supp (3) SCC 483: Raised concerns of tutoring and false implication due to enmity.
- Pradeep v. State of Haryana, (2023) SCC OnLine SC 777: Emphasized that conviction must be based on unimpeachable and consistent testimony.
- State (GNCT of Delhi) v. Vipin @ Lalla, Cr. Appeal No. 94 of 2025 (Order dated 07.01.2025): Acquittal was upheld due to absence of injury despite hymen tear and inconsistencies in survivor’s statement.
Respondent’s Arguments
The prosecution, supported by an Amicus Curiae for the survivor, responded that:
- The survivor’s testimony was consistent regarding the core allegation that the appellant inserted his penis into her vagina.
- Minor discrepancies were natural given that the survivor was only 5 years old at the time of testimony.
- The testimony was corroborated by:
- Her elder sister (PW-2), who witnessed the act through the window;
- Her mother (PW-6), who saw the accused with his pants zipped up and the child half-naked;
- Her father (PW-3), who broke open the window to enter the room;
- Medical evidence (Ex. PW-12/A) confirming hymenal tear and bruising;
- FSL report (Ex. PW-9/A) confirming the presence of the appellant’s DNA on the jute bag recovered from the room.
- The appellant failed to rebut the statutory presumption under Section 29 of the POCSO Act.
- The prosecution relied on:
- State of Punjab v. Gurmeet Singh, (1996) 2 SCC 384: Held that testimony of the prosecutrix, if found reliable, is sufficient for conviction even without corroboration. Minor contradictions must be ignored.
Analysis of the Law
The Court held that the minor inconsistencies in the testimony of the survivor and witnesses regarding who opened the door, or how the child was found, did not affect the core allegation of penetrative sexual assault.
The Court observed that:
“Looking at the age of the survivor as well as the lapse of time from the date of the said incident to her examination should be borne in mind. The survivor otherwise has been consistent in her testimony…”
Regarding the forensic evidence, the Court affirmed that:
- The chain of custody for the jute bag was established through PW-5 (Naresh Kumar), PW-10 (ASI Shaji T.A.), PW-8 (HC Raj Singh), and the Investigating Officer.
- The FSL report (Ex. PW-9/A) confirmed that the DNA on the jute bag matched the appellant’s DNA (Exhibit 8 with Exhibit 11).
- The appellant failed to provide a plausible explanation for the presence of his semen on the jute bag.
On the point of tutoring, the Court clarified:
“Such a statement of the survivor, who is aged about 5 years, will not bear any significance keeping in view the fact the MLC as well as FSL report fully corroborates her testimony.”
The Court rejected the argument that the evidence was planted, stating that it was improbable that the police would go to such lengths to falsely implicate the appellant.
Precedent Analysis
- State of Punjab v. Gurmeet Singh, (1996) 2 SCC 384
- Relied upon to uphold conviction based on consistent testimony of a rape survivor, even if minor contradictions exist.
- Chaggan Dame v. State of Gujarat, (1993) Supp (3) SCC 483
- Cited by appellant to argue possible tutoring due to enmity; not accepted as survivor’s testimony was corroborated.
- Pradeep v. State of Haryana, (2023) SCC OnLine SC 777
- Cited to emphasize inconsistencies; not applicable due to corroborative medical and forensic evidence here.
- State (GNCT of Delhi) v. Vipin @ Lalla, Cr. A. No. 94 of 2025
- Distinguished as in that case the medical report did not support prosecution’s case and testimony was inconsistent, unlike the present case.
Court’s Reasoning
- The testimony of the survivor was found to be of sterling quality, adequately corroborated by medical (MLC) and forensic (FSL) evidence.
- The presumption under Sections 29 and 30 of the POCSO Act was not rebutted by the appellant, who merely alleged family disputes without substantiating his defence.
- The trial court’s findings were found to be well-reasoned and based on cogent evidence.
Conclusion
The High Court upheld the conviction and sentence, holding:
“In the considered opinion of this Court, the defence taken by the appellant has failed to prove to the contrary, the presumption raised under the POCSO Act.”
Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed and the conviction and sentence were affirmed.
Implications
- Reiterates that the sole testimony of a child survivor, if consistent and supported by medical/forensic evidence, is sufficient for conviction.
- Emphasizes the strength of statutory presumptions under the POCSO Act and the burden on the accused to rebut them convincingly.
- Provides guidance on how courts should view minor contradictions in the testimony of child witnesses.
- Reinforces the importance of chain of custody in forensic evidence, especially in cases involving sexual offences.
Also Read: Allahabad High Court Dismisses Arbitration Appeal by Government Entity as Time-Barred