The Delhi High Court has dismissed a criminal appeal challenging a conviction under Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act) and Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), holding that the consistent and credible testimony of a child victim can by itself sustain a conviction, even in the absence of medical or forensic corroboration.
Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri, while dismissing the Criminal Appeal, upheld the 2016 trial court judgment convicting the appellant, the stepfather of the victim, for repeatedly committing penetrative sexual assault on an 11-year-old child and criminally intimidating her. The Court rejected the appellant’s contentions relating to delay in lodging the FIR, refusal of internal medical examination, and alleged contradictions in the testimonies of the victim and her mother, holding that these factors did not undermine the prosecution’s case.
Referring to the settled Supreme Court jurisprudence on the appreciation of child witness testimony, the Court held that “the sole testimony of a victim can form the basis of conviction, subject to the same being found consistent and credible.” The Court held that the minor contradiction was immaterial and did not undermine the credible testimony of the prosecutrix.
The Court rejected the appellant’s defence that he was falsely implicated for refusing to accept the children from the victim’s mother’s first marriage, noting that the marriage had taken place in 2009 while the incident occurred in 2014, after a gap of five years. It also dismissed the allegation that the victim was tutored to enable the mother to usurp the appellant’s property, holding that the claim was vague and unsubstantiated, particularly as no material was placed on record to show that the appellant owned any property, and evidence indicated that he was residing in rented accommodation.
Finding the defence to be vague and unsubstantiated, the Court affirmed the conviction and sentence, cancelled the appellant’s bail bond, and directed that he be taken into custody to undergo the remaining sentence.
Cases referred
State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Balveer Singh, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 390
Deepak Kumar Sahu Vs. State of Chhattisgarh, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1610
Appaearances
Appellant- Mr. Rovin Kumar and Ms. Shelly Gujela, Advocates
Respondent- Mr Pradeep Gahalot, APP for State with SI Charu Saini, P.S. Aman Vihar, Delhi. Mr. Dushyant Kishan Kaul, Advocate (Amicus Curiae, pro bono) for victim
