Court’s Decision
The Delhi High Court dismissed an appeal challenging the conviction and sentence under Section 376(2)(i) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. It held that minor inconsistencies in the victim’s testimony do not shake the core evidence, especially when the DNA results corroborate sexual assault, and the victim was proven to be a minor. The presumption under Section 29 of the POCSO Act remained unrebutted.
Facts
An FIR was registered based on a complaint that a 15-year-old girl had gone missing after leaving for school on 30 March 2017. She was recovered on 28 April 2017 from a rented accommodation in Shahupura, Faridabad, along with the appellant, who is her maternal uncle’s son. In her statements to the police and under Section 164 of the CrPC, the victim stated that she was lured by the appellant under the pretext of visiting a temple and later drugged at his residence in Prahladpur. She woke up unclothed, and was told by the appellant that her family would not accept her now. He allegedly kept her confined for several days and had repeated sexual intercourse with her.
Medical examination confirmed sexual assault. The FSL report detected semen on her clothes, which matched the appellant’s DNA. Charges were framed under multiple IPC and POCSO provisions. The trial court acquitted the appellant under some charges but convicted him under Section 376(2)(i) IPC and Section 4 of the POCSO Act, sentencing him to ten years’ rigorous imprisonment.
Issues
- Whether the inconsistencies in the testimony of the victim warranted acquittal of the accused?
- Whether the scientific and circumstantial evidence proved the appellant’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt?
- Whether the presumption under Section 29 of the POCSO Act was rebutted?
Petitioner’s Arguments
The appellant contended that:
- The victim’s statements were riddled with inconsistencies and improvements, including omissions about rape in Shahupura and contradictions regarding threats.
- The seizure memo of the victim’s clothes lacked a date, and there was a delay in forwarding the samples to the FSL, raising doubts about tampering.
- There were no independent witnesses from Prahladpur or Shahupura, despite the victim allegedly being held captive in populated areas.
- The appellant relied on the Supreme Court’s judgment in Rahul v. State (NCT of Delhi) and Harbeer Singh v. Sheeshpal to assert that scientific evidence without corroboration is insufficient to convict.
Respondent’s Arguments
The State submitted that:
- The victim’s testimony remained materially consistent about the sequence of events and her stay with the appellant.
- Her age was established through undisputed school records.
- The FSL report conclusively established that the DNA on her clothing matched the appellant’s.
- The appellant had not offered any plausible explanation for the presence of his semen on the victim’s clothes, nor rebutted the statutory presumption under Section 29 of the POCSO Act.
- The minor inconsistencies noted by the defence were inconsequential, especially given the settled position that consent is irrelevant in cases involving minors.
Analysis of the Law
The High Court reiterated that in appeals against conviction under Section 374 CrPC, the court must reappreciate the entire evidence independently. Citing Jogi & Ors. v. State of Madhya Pradesh, it underscored the importance of detailed analysis, especially where personal liberty is at stake.
Section 4 of the POCSO Act (punishment for penetrative sexual assault) read with Section 29 creates a statutory presumption once foundational facts are proved by the prosecution. This shifts the burden on the accused to rebut the presumption, either through cross-examination or by leading contrary evidence.
The Court also relied on Nirmal Premkumar v. State to clarify that inconsistencies in the victim’s statements do not automatically discredit the entire testimony. The court must examine whether the core allegations remain credible and whether corroborative evidence, especially medical and scientific, support the prosecution’s case.
Precedent Analysis
The Court relied on:
- Satish Kumar Jayantilal Dabgar v. State of Gujarat [(2015) 7 SCC 359], where the Supreme Court ruled that the consent of a minor is immaterial under clause sixthly of Section 375 IPC.
- Nirmal Premkumar v. State [2024 SCC OnLine SC 260], which emphasized the value of victim testimony in sexual offences when supported by medical and forensic evidence.
- Altaf Ahmed v. State (GNCTD) [2020 SCC OnLine Del 1938], which clarified the limited applicability of the presumption under Section 29 of the POCSO Act and the requirement of establishing foundational facts.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court noted:
- The minor was indeed below 16 years at the time of the offence, as proven by undisputed school documents.
- The DNA evidence found on the victim’s clothing, recovered at the time of her rescue, directly linked the appellant to the act.
- Although inconsistencies existed, they were not substantial enough to render her testimony unreliable. The crucial facts — the victim’s stay with the appellant, his sexual act with her, and her recovery at his instance — remained unchanged.
- The defence failed to establish any motive for false implication or rebut the presumption under Section 29.
The High Court rejected the argument of tampering with the FSL samples, noting that proper chain of custody and seal conditions were proven through multiple witnesses.
Conclusion
The Court upheld the conviction, stating:
“Inconsistencies in the evidence do not come in defence of the appellant in view of the established facts that the victim was a minor at the time of the incident, the appellant’s semen was found present on the salwar of the victim, and the fact that she was recovered at his instance after almost a month of her disappearance.”
The sentence of ten years was deemed proportionate, especially considering the gravity of the crime. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.
Implications
- The ruling reinforces that minor inconsistencies in the testimony of a minor victim do not negate a conviction when scientific evidence corroborates the allegations.
- It upholds the strict liability principle under POCSO for sexual offences involving minors, where consent is irrelevant.
- It emphasizes the importance of proving foundational facts to trigger presumptions under statutory provisions like Section 29 of the POCSO Act.
FAQs
Q1. Can a person be convicted of rape even if the relationship was consensual?
Yes, if the victim is a minor, consent is immaterial under Indian law. The Delhi High Court reaffirmed that consent by a girl under 18 does not absolve the accused of rape charges.
Q2. What is the significance of Section 29 of the POCSO Act?
Section 29 presumes the accused guilty of offences under the Act once the prosecution establishes basic facts. It shifts the burden of proof to the accused to disprove the allegations.
Q3. Can DNA evidence alone secure a conviction?
DNA evidence, when uncontested and properly linked to the victim and crime, can strongly support conviction — especially when corroborated by witness testimony, as in this case.
Also Read: Chhattisgarh High Court Upholds Life Sentence for Gang Rape of Mentally Challenged Minor
