The Delhi High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by the appellant challenging his conviction under Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO Act) and Sections 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code,1860. The case involved the aggravated penetrative sexual assault of a 13-year-old boy by the appellant, along with co-accused persons. The Court observed that the appellant had been rightly sentenced to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment by the Trial Court. Considering the gravity of the offence, it found no ground to interfere with the conviction or sentence.
In his petition, the appellant contended that there was no incriminating evidence against him for the offence and that the judgment had been written in a mechanical manner, ignoring that the alleged incriminating acts attributed to him had not been proved. He claimed that it was highly presumptive and based on assumptions and that the prosecution had failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt.
However, the Court ruled that the testimony of the child victim was not only consistent with the statement made to the Investigating Officer but also with his statement recorded under Section 164 of CrPC. It concluded that the prosecution had successfully proved its case against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. The Court also noted that the medical evidence supported the victim’s version of events and reinforced the prosecution’s case.
Justice Neena Bansal Krishna, after considering the submissions and evidence on record, held that there was no ground to overrule the Trial Court’s conclusion. The conviction under Section 6 of the POCSO Act was upheld by the High Court, which reiterated that the minor victim’s testimony, supported by medical evidence, was sufficient. Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed.
Appearances:
Appellant: Mr. Dhruva Bhagat, Advocate.
Respondent: Mr. Shoaib Haider, APP.
