Delhi High Court Upholds Conviction for Sexual Assault of 10-Year-Old Boy; Finds Child’s Testimony Reliable but Reduces POCSO Sentence From 20 to 10 Years
Delhi High Court Upholds Man’s Conviction for Aggravated Sexual Assault of Minor Boy; Reduces 20-Year POCSO Sentence to 10 Years Under Pre-Amendment Law
Facts
The appellant, Mohan @ Sunny, challenged his conviction and sentence arising from an incident dated 30 November 2016 at Chhata Rail, GPO, Kashmere Gate, Delhi. The prosecution alleged that the appellant sexually assaulted a 10-year-old boy, who was homeless and earned his livelihood by rag-picking. The accused allegedly approached the child while he was sleeping beneath a railway bridge, offered him food and work, removed his clothes and forcibly committed anal intercourse with him while gagging his mouth when he attempted to scream.
According to the victim, he managed to escape and disclosed the incident to two NGO workers who were in the area conducting outreach for homeless persons. The victim identified the appellant, following which the police were informed and the accused was apprehended.
The Trial Court convicted the appellant under Section 377 IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act. For the POCSO offence, he was sentenced to 20 years’ rigorous imprisonment with a fine of ₹5,000, with no separate sentence imposed under Section 377 IPC.
The accused challenged both his conviction and sentence before the Delhi High Court.
Issues
The principal issues before the High Court were:
- Whether the prosecution had proved beyond reasonable doubt that the victim was below 12 years of age on the date of the incident so as to attract aggravated penetrative sexual assault under Section 6 read with Section 5(m) of the POCSO Act.
- Whether discrepancies in the child’s statements concerning the exact time, clothing and sequence of events rendered his testimony unreliable.
- Whether differences between the victim’s account and the testimony of the NGO workers created reasonable doubt.
- Whether the absence of external injuries in the medical examination weakened the prosecution case.
- Whether the FSL report, which had not been formally exhibited or proved during trial, affected the validity of the conviction.
- Whether the Trial Court could impose 20 years’ rigorous imprisonment for an offence committed in 2016 when Section 6 POCSO, as it then stood, prescribed a minimum sentence of 10 years.
Petitioner/Appellant’s Arguments
The appellant argued that the prosecution had failed to satisfactorily establish that the victim was below 12 years of age. It was contended that the school admission/withdrawal register by itself was insufficient proof of age, and reliance was placed upon State (GNCT of Delhi) v. Mohd. Irfan.
The defence further highlighted inconsistencies in the victim’s testimony concerning the incident and the clothes he was wearing. It also pointed to variations between the testimony of the victim and that of the NGO officials regarding how the child and accused were found at the scene.
The appellant relied upon the forensic evidence and argued that the FSL report favoured him. It was further alleged that the victim, being a poor rag-picker, had been tutored by NGO officials to falsely implicate the accused in exchange for money.
On sentence, the appellant submitted that the incident occurred on 30 November 2016, prior to the 2019 amendment to Section 6 POCSO. At that time, the statutory minimum punishment was 10 years’ rigorous imprisonment, and therefore the Trial Court had erred in imposing 20 years. The appellant sought reduction of the sentence to 10 years.
Respondent’s Arguments
The State argued that there was no infirmity in the conviction and that the evidence on record was sufficient to establish the offences.
It contended that the appellant’s reliance on Mohd. Irfan for challenging the school record was misplaced. According to the prosecution, that judgment was distinguishable and the school admission record in the present case had been properly proved.
The State therefore sought confirmation of the conviction.
Analysis of the Law
Proof of Victim’s Age
The High Court distinguished Mohd. Irfan. In that case, the foundational material underlying the school record itself was unreliable: the date of birth was based upon an affidavit purportedly executed by the prosecutrix’s mother after her death, and other discrepancies existed regarding the deponent and the prosecutrix’s own stated age.
The present case was materially different.
The MCD School Principal proved the admission register recording the victim’s date of birth as 12 October 2005. Crucially, she was not cross-examined by the defence, leaving her testimony unchallenged. The victim’s father also corroborated the school record and explained why the child was known by two different names.
On this evidence, the victim was approximately 11 years and one month old when the offence occurred on 30 November 2016. The Court therefore held that the prosecution had proved beyond reasonable doubt that he was below 12 years of age, satisfying the requirement for Section 6 POCSO.
Testimony of a Homeless Child
The Court attached considerable importance to the circumstances in which the victim lived. He was a homeless child surviving on the streets through rag-picking.
The Court held that it would be unrealistic to expect such a child to know his exact date of birth or recount every peripheral detail with mathematical precision. Variations concerning time, clothing and similar matters were natural, particularly where a child was recounting a traumatic incident after considerable time.
The material allegations remained consistent throughout the FIR, Section 164 Cr.P.C. statement and testimony before the Trial Court: the accused approached him, lured him with food and work, removed his clothes, forcibly committed anal intercourse, gagged him when he attempted to scream, and was identified shortly thereafter.
Minor Discrepancies Do Not Destroy Credible Testimony
The High Court held that inconsistencies regarding the exact time, description of clothing, ownership of a red-coloured garment and precise sequence in which NGO workers and police arrived were peripheral.
They did not affect the essential allegation of forcible anal intercourse or the identity of the accused.
Minor discrepancies arising from ordinary errors of observation and memory, particularly in the testimony of a child recounting trauma after a lapse of time, could not justify discarding otherwise cogent and trustworthy evidence.
Absence of External Injuries
The medical examination recorded no external injuries on the victim.
The High Court held that this did not discredit the victim’s otherwise consistent testimony. Medical evidence is ordinarily corroborative and cannot override reliable ocular evidence unless it makes the occurrence described by the witness medically impossible.
FSL Report Not Substantive Evidence
The High Court noticed that the Trial Court had relied upon the FSL report even though it had not been formally marked or proved during trial.
However, the Court held that this defect did not invalidate the conviction because forensic evidence was merely corroborative and the prosecution case independently stood established through reliable oral evidence.
Even after completely excluding the FSL report from consideration, the victim’s testimony, corroborated by the two NGO witnesses, was sufficient to sustain the conviction.
Applicable Punishment Under Section 6 POCSO
The offence occurred in November 2016.
At that time, Section 6 POCSO prescribed rigorous imprisonment for not less than 10 years, extendable to imprisonment for life, along with fine.
Relying upon Ravinder Singh v. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi, the High Court held that the Trial Court could not have imposed the 20-year sentence in the manner it had done. The High Court accordingly modified the sentence to 10 years’ rigorous imprisonment.
Precedent Analysis
State (GNCT of Delhi) v. Mohd. Irfan
The appellant relied upon this decision to contend that a school admission register could not by itself establish the victim’s age.
The High Court distinguished the precedent because the foundational document supporting the school entry in Mohd. Irfan was demonstrably unreliable. In contrast, the school record in the present case was duly proved, the Principal’s testimony remained completely unchallenged, and the victim’s father corroborated the record.
Solanki Chimanbhai Ukabhai v. State of Gujarat
This decision was relied upon for the proposition that medical evidence is ordinarily corroborative. Unless medical evidence completely rules out the possibility of the occurrence having taken place as described by the eyewitness, credible ocular testimony cannot be rejected merely because of an apparent inconsistency with medical findings.
The Court also referred to Rangnath Shamrao Dhas v. State of Maharashtra on the same principle.
Ravinder Singh v. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi
This Supreme Court judgment became significant at the sentencing stage.
Applying Ravinder Singh, the High Court concluded that the Trial Court could not have imposed the 20-year sentence for the offence committed when the pre-amendment version of Section 6 POCSO governed the case. The sentence was consequently reduced to 10 years’ rigorous imprisonment.
Court’s Reasoning
The High Court found no reason to interfere with the finding of guilt.
The victim had consistently identified the appellant and described the essential circumstances of the assault from the earliest stage. His version was substantially corroborated by two independent NGO workers who had no prior relationship with either the victim or the accused.
The Court rejected the suggestion that the NGO workers had fabricated the prosecution case for publicity or funding, finding no material in their cross-examination capable of discrediting their testimony.
Importantly, the Court evaluated the victim’s evidence in the context of his circumstances. As a homeless child living on the streets and earning through rag-picking, he could not reasonably be expected to provide exact dates, times and descriptions with the same precision expected from a witness living in a settled environment.
The absence of external injuries did not contradict his testimony, and the deficiencies surrounding the FSL report were not fatal because the conviction did not depend upon forensic evidence.
Accordingly, the High Court held that the Trial Court had correctly convicted the appellant under Section 377 IPC and Section 6 read with Section 5(m) of the POCSO Act.
However, the Court found merit in the challenge to the quantum of punishment. Since the offence occurred in 2016, the applicable version of Section 6 POCSO prescribed a minimum of 10 years’ rigorous imprisonment. The Court therefore reduced the substantive sentence from 20 years to 10 years.
Conclusion
The Delhi High Court partly allowed the appeal.
The appellant’s conviction under Section 377 IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act was confirmed. The Court held that the victim’s age had been satisfactorily proved, his testimony was consistent on all material particulars, peripheral discrepancies did not undermine his credibility, and neither the absence of external injuries nor deficiencies concerning the FSL report created reasonable doubt.
However, the Court interfered with the sentence. The 20-year rigorous imprisonment imposed by the Trial Court under Section 6 POCSO was reduced to 10 years’ rigorous imprisonment.
Case Details
Case: Mohan @ Sunny v. State (NCT of Delhi)
Court: High Court of Delhi at New Delhi
Case Number: CRL.A. 1636/2025; CNR No. DLHC010953452025
Judge: Hon’ble Ms. Justice Chandrasekharan Sudha
Date: 10 August 2026
Result: Appeal partly allowed; conviction under Section 377 IPC and Section 6 POCSO Act upheld, but sentence under Section 6 POCSO reduced from 20 years to 10 years’ rigorous imprisonment.
