Delhi High Court Upholds POCSO Conviction of Uncle for Sexually Assaulting Minor Niece; Rejects Loan-Dispute Defence and Finds Victim’s Testimony Consistent and Corroborated
Delhi High Court Dismisses Appeal in Minor Niece Sexual Assault Case; Finds Prosecutrix’s Testimony Reliable and Corroborated by Brother
Facts
The appellant, Ram Pravesh Thakur, challenged his conviction and sentence in Sessions Case No. 254/2022 for offences under Sections 10 and 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and Sections 354 and 354B IPC. The trial court had convicted him on 22 February 2025 and sentenced him on 12 July 2025.
The prosecution case was that on 3 April 2022, between about 3:30 and 4:00 PM, the appellant, who was the minor prosecutrix’s uncle by relation, approached her while she was at home, touched her with sexual intent, unzipped his trousers, exposed his private part and attempted to remove her clothes.
The FIR was registered the same day. The prosecutrix later gave a statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., and her version was substantially reiterated during trial.
The trial court sentenced the appellant to five years’ simple imprisonment with fine for the offence under Section 10 POCSO, and two years’ simple imprisonment with fine under Section 12 POCSO. No separate sentence was awarded for Sections 354 and 354B IPC in view of Section 42 of the POCSO Act.
Issues
The principal issue before the Delhi High Court was whether there was any infirmity in the trial court’s judgment warranting interference in appeal.
More specifically, the Court had to determine whether the testimony of the minor prosecutrix was credible and sufficient, whether the brother’s evidence corroborated her version, and whether the defence of false implication arising from an alleged ₹50,000 loan dispute created reasonable doubt.
Appellant’s Arguments
The appellant argued that the alleged incident occurred on a Sunday when, according to the defence, all family members would ordinarily have been at home. It was therefore contended that the prosecutrix’s claim that she was alone with the accused was improbable.
The defence further alleged that the prosecutrix’s mother had borrowed ₹50,000 from the appellant and had failed to repay it. According to the appellant, he had remained at the family’s house in order to recover the loan and was falsely implicated after demanding repayment.
The appellant relied on his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and on the testimony of his brother, DW1, who supported the loan transaction theory.
Respondent’s Arguments
The State defended the conviction and submitted that the trial court judgment disclosed no infirmity requiring interference.
It relied on the consistency of the prosecutrix’s FIR, her Section 164 statement and her deposition before the court, as well as the corroborating testimony of her brother, who had entered the house during the incident.
Analysis of the Law
The High Court focused on whether the acts attributed to the appellant satisfied the ingredients of the POCSO offences and related IPC provisions.
The Court noted that the minority of the prosecutrix was undisputed. It then examined whether the appellant’s overt acts—approaching her while she was lying on the bed, touching her shoulder, unzipping his trousers, exposing himself and attempting to undress her—were sufficient to establish sexual intent.
The Court held that such conduct fell within Section 7 POCSO, involving physical contact with sexual intent without penetration, and also within Section 11, which includes exhibiting any part of the body with the intention that it be seen by the child.
The Court further held that the attempt to undress the prosecutrix also attracted Sections 354 and 354B IPC.
Precedent Analysis
The judgment did not turn on an extensive line of precedent concerning evidentiary appreciation of child witnesses. Instead, the Court primarily assessed the evidence on record.
It did, however, refer to Moidu K. v. State of Kerala while noting that non-compliance with Section 232 Cr.P.C. does not automatically vitiate a trial unless the omission causes serious or substantial prejudice to the accused. Since no such prejudice was demonstrated, that procedural lapse did not affect the conviction.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court found that the prosecutrix’s version in the FIR, Section 164 statement and testimony was materially consistent on the core allegation that the appellant sexually approached her, exposed himself and attempted to undress her.
Her brother, PW3, provided significant corroboration. He testified that when he returned home, he saw the appellant near his sister with his hand on her shoulder and the zip of his trousers open. The prosecutrix appeared frightened, and she subsequently disclosed that the appellant had attempted to do a “wrong act” with her.
The Court found no substantial inconsistency capable of discrediting either PW1 or PW3.
The argument that the incident was improbable because it occurred on a Sunday was rejected. PW3 had specifically stated that even on Sundays it was not necessary for every family member to remain at home throughout the day. The Court also noted that no proper suggestion had been put to the prosecutrix challenging the presence or absence of family members at the relevant time.
The High Court also rejected the loan-dispute defence as improbable. It found it difficult to accept that the appellant would continue staying in the house of a family with whom he allegedly had a serious outstanding financial dispute.
The Court also questioned the appellant’s explanation for deliberately missing his train on 1 April 2022 and returning to the prosecutrix’s house allegedly only to remain there until repayment was made. It observed that this explanation did not fit naturally with the defence case.
The Court therefore concluded that the prosecution evidence was credible and that the appellant’s conduct clearly disclosed sexual intent.
Conclusion
The Delhi High Court found no infirmity in the conviction or sentence warranting appellate interference.
It held that the acts of the appellant clearly satisfied the ingredients of sexual assault under the POCSO Act and also constituted offences under Sections 354 and 354B IPC.
Accordingly, the criminal appeal was dismissed and all pending applications were closed.
Case Details
Case: Ram Pravesh Thakur v. State of N.C.T. of Delhi
Court: Delhi High Court
Case Number: CRL.A. 1669/2025 & CRL.M.A. 36549/2025
CNR: DLHC010984582025
Judge: Justice Chandrasekharan Sudha
Reserved: 1 September 2026
Pronounced: 9 September 2026
Result: Appeal dismissed; conviction under Sections 10 and 12 POCSO and Sections 354 and 354B IPC upheld.
