Delhi High Court Upholds POCSO Conviction for Repeated Sexual Assault of 14-Year-Old; Nude Photos Corroborate Threats, Refuses Sentence Reduction After Accused Absconded
Delhi High Court Upholds POCSO Conviction for Repeated Sexual Assault of Minor; Nude Photographs and Consistent Testimony Corroborate Prosecution Case
Facts
The appeal was filed by Wahid Khan, the sole accused, challenging his conviction by the Special Judge, POCSO Act, East District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi under Section 5(l) read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act. He had been sentenced to 12 years’ rigorous imprisonment with a fine of ₹10,000.
The prosecution alleged that for approximately seven to eight months preceding 20 November 2015, the accused repeatedly committed aggravated penetrative sexual assault upon a girl aged approximately 14 years.
According to the victim, the accused was the father-in-law of her friend. On the first occasion, he told her that her friend was calling her. When she reached the house, he locked the room, sexually assaulted her and took nude photographs on his mobile phone. He threatened to publish the photographs and harm her siblings if she disclosed the assault.
The victim stated that the accused subsequently used the photographs and threats to repeatedly intimidate and sexually assault her over several months. The matter ultimately came to light after the accused visited her home on Bhai Dooj and threatened her and her siblings, following which she disclosed the assaults to her mother.
The accused denied the allegations and claimed false implication because the victim’s father and certain others had allegedly borrowed money from him and wanted to avoid repayment.
Issues
- Whether the prosecution had satisfactorily proved that the prosecutrix was a minor at the time of the offences.
- Whether her testimony regarding repeated penetrative sexual assault was credible and sufficiently corroborated.
- Whether the delay of approximately seven months in reporting the offences created reasonable doubt.
- Whether the nude photographs recovered from the accused’s mobile phone were properly identified and proved.
- Whether the recovery and chain of custody of the mobile phone were satisfactorily established.
- Whether the conviction under Section 5(l) read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act was sustainable.
- Whether the sentence of 12 years’ rigorous imprisonment should be reduced to the then statutory minimum of 10 years.
Appellant’s Arguments
The accused argued that the prosecution failed to reliably establish the victim’s age. The school record relied upon by the prosecution was based upon an affidavit submitted by the victim’s mother rather than an authentic municipal or panchayat birth certificate.
It was further pointed out that the victim’s birth had admittedly never been registered with any governmental authority and that her first school records and janam patri had not been produced.
The appellant challenged the prosecution’s case concerning the place of occurrence and highlighted the seven-month delay in lodging the FIR.
He also argued that the photographs recovered from the mobile phone were never shown to or identified by the victim or her mother during trial.
The recovery and chain of custody were also challenged on the basis of alleged inconsistencies between the Investigating Officer and the seizure witness regarding whether the phone had been opened and examined at the time of seizure.
On sentence, the appellant submitted that since the offences occurred before the 2019 amendment to Section 6 POCSO, the statutory minimum was 10 years, and requested reduction of the 12-year sentence to that minimum.
Respondent’s Arguments
The State and counsel for the prosecutrix supported the Trial Court judgment and argued that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the conviction.
They contended that the defence had not effectively challenged the age-related school documents during cross-examination.
Regarding the photographs, it was argued that the Investigating Officer had personally seen the photographs on the phone and identified the victim. Her evidence constituted direct evidence under Section 60 of the Evidence Act.
The prosecution further relied upon the FSL examination independently establishing the identity of the victim in the photographs.
Analysis of the Law
Proof of Minor’s Age
The High Court distinguished between the certificate prepared by the school principal and the underlying Admission Register.
It held that the certificate, Ext. PW7/D, being a written statement given to police during investigation, was inadmissible as a statement under Section 161 CrPC.
However, the Admission Register extract, Ext. PW7/A, was admissible evidence. It recorded the victim’s date of birth as 4 February 2001. The defence had never suggested to the school principal during cross-examination that the entry was false or based upon false information.
Accordingly, the Court held that the victim was 14 years old at the relevant time, establishing her minority for purposes of POCSO.
Evidentiary Value of Photographs
The Court rejected the argument that the photographs became unreliable merely because they had not been shown to the victim or her mother during their testimony.
The Investigating Officer had personally seen the victim and thereafter examined the mobile phone recovered from the accused. Her testimony that the photographs stored on the phone depicted the prosecutrix was therefore direct oral evidence of a fact perceived through her own senses under Section 60 of the Evidence Act.
More importantly, the FSL scientifically compared an image extracted from the phone with the victim’s photograph and concluded that both images depicted the same female. No indication of image reproduction or manipulation was detected.
Chain of Custody
The Court found that the prosecution established an unbroken chain of custody.
The evidence of the Investigating Officer, Malkhana Head Constable and constable who transported the sealed parcels to the FSL was consistent and supported by the malkhana entries, acknowledgment receipts and FSL report.
The FSL further recorded that the seals were intact and matched the specimen seals. No evidence of tampering or substitution was produced.
Precedent Analysis
The Court relied upon Sasi v. State of Kerala, Kali Ram v. State of H.P., Kanu Ambu Vish v. State of Maharashtra, Datar Singh v. State of Punjab and C. Chenga Reddy v. State of A.P. while holding that the school principal’s written certificate supplied during investigation constituted a Section 161 CrPC statement and was therefore inadmissible.
However, this did not affect the prosecution because the underlying Admission Register was independently admissible and proved the victim’s date of birth.
The Court also referred to Moidu K. v. State of Kerala while dealing with the Trial Court’s failure to conduct a hearing under Section 232 CrPC after recording the accused’s Section 313 statement. It held that non-compliance does not automatically vitiate the trial unless serious and substantial prejudice is shown. No such prejudice had been pleaded by the accused.
Court’s Reasoning
The High Court found the prosecutrix’s account consistent across her FIR, Section 164 CrPC statement and testimony before the Trial Court.
Her version concerning the sexual assaults, nude photographs and threats was materially corroborated by her mother. Her younger brother further corroborated the incident on Bhai Dooj when he saw the accused threaten the victim and her siblings with a knife.
The medical evidence also supported the prosecution case: the victim’s MLC recorded that her hymen was torn.
The Court rejected the defence argument that there was no plausible reason for the victim to go to the accused’s house when her friend lived separately. The victim consistently stated that the accused had told her that her friend was calling her. Since he was her friend’s father-in-law, it was not unnatural for the victim to believe her friend might be at his residence.
The delay in reporting was also satisfactorily explained. The accused had threatened to publish the victim’s nude photographs and harm her siblings if she disclosed the assaults. Crucially, the subsequent recovery of her nude photographs from his mobile phone corroborated the very threat which explained her silence.
The Court therefore held that the ingredients of Section 5(l) POCSO were established and confirmed the conviction under Section 6.
Refusal to Reduce Sentence
The Court acknowledged that, when the offences occurred in 2015, Section 6 prescribed a minimum sentence of 10 years’ rigorous imprisonment, whereas the Trial Court had imposed 12 years.
However, the appellant had been granted interim bail in 2021 and failed to surrender when it expired. He remained absconding for approximately four years and was eventually arrested only on 9 December 2025.
Considering the gravity of the offences and his conduct in evading the process of law, the Court found no exceptional circumstance warranting reduction of the sentence, despite his advanced age and age-related ailments.
Conclusion
The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal in its entirety.
It confirmed the conviction of Wahid Khan under Section 5(l) read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act for repeatedly committing aggravated penetrative sexual assault upon the minor victim.
The Court also refused to reduce the 12-year rigorous imprisonment sentence to the then statutory minimum of 10 years, particularly considering the seriousness of the offences and the appellant’s four-year abscondence after being granted interim bail.
Case Details
Case: Wahid Khan v. State
Court: Delhi High Court
Case Number: CRL.A. 971/2019; CNR No. DLHC010348712019
Judge: Justice Chandrasekharan Sudha
Date: 07 August 2026
Result: Appeal dismissed; conviction under Section 5(l) read with Section 6 POCSO and sentence of 12 years’ rigorous imprisonment with ₹10,000 fine upheld.
