Back
Delhi HC Shields Child Victim's Word: No Hymen Tear Needed to Nail POCSO Rapist, Sentence Slashed
In a ruling that reinforces the primacy of a child victim's testimony in sexual assault cases, the partly allowed an appeal by Rajender Sharma, upholding his conviction for the brutal of a six-year-old girl in . Justice Chandrasekharan Sudha confirmed guilt under and but trimmed the trial court's 20-year rigorous imprisonment term to 14 years, citing sentencing limits under the law as it stood then. As reported in legal circles, this decision underscores that medical anomalies like an intact hymen do not derail justice when the child's consistent account holds firm.
A Tenant’s Betrayal in Sangam Vihar
The nightmare unfolded on , at D-29/3, Rashtriya Marg, Sangam Vihar, where appellant Rajender Sharma, a 27-year-old tenant, allegedly lured the (PW1), daughter of the landlord's relative, under the pretense of helping her to the bathroom. The child recounted how Sharma removed her clothes, sat her on his lap, and inserted his private part into hers, causing excruciating pain. She confided in her maternal grandmother (PW2), leading to an the next day at under and (later upgraded to ).
The trial in Sessions Case No. 6565/2016 ended with conviction on , and sentencing on . Sharma appealed, arguing false implication amid a rent row—his landlady (PW2) allegedly coached the child to evict him after he refused to pay higher rent.
Defense Fires on All Fronts: Lies, Lapses, and a Landlord's Grudge
Sharma's counsel hammered perceived cracks in the prosecution: contradictions in PW1's , , and court testimony (bathroom vs. back lane), no seizure of victim's clothes despite claims, botched for forensic samples from , and an intact hymen contradicting "penetration." They painted PW2 as vengeful, noting her threats over ₹1,500 rent when a new tenant offered ₹3,000. Defense witnesses (DW1, DW2—Sharma's relatives) claimed police spared them for vacating promptly, but targeted the defiant accused.
Prosecution's Rock: Child's Steadfast Cry
The state countered that PW1's core allegation—penetration by "Rajinder uncle"—remained unshaken across statements. Minor venue discrepancies paled against her consistency, supported by PW2's account of the child's distress, bruises, and a belt mark. Medical evidence from (PW4) noted a 1.5x0.5 cm pubic abrasion, aligning with assault. Though found traces, the court sidelined it due to sloppy seizures (memos marked but witnesses mum on details). Prosecutors dismissed defense witnesses as biased kin, rejecting the improbable tutoring of a toddler.
Bench Cuts Through the Noise: Testimony Trumps Tests
Justice Sudha meticulously dissected the evidence, invoking to brush off the trial court's skipped hearing as non-prejudicial. Victim inconsistencies? "Immaterial," as one bathroom door opened to the gali, and pain was consistent. Forensic woes? Serious, rendering FSL "corroborative at best"—but unnecessary when PW1's testimony rang true.
Crucially, debunking the hymen red herring: Under POCSO Section 3(a), penetration "to any extent" suffices—no rupture required. The abrasion sealed it. The rent feud tale? "Quite improbable" to coach a six-year-old for eviction. Citing , the court capped the sentence at 14 years, as 20 years exceeded options (10 years min to life).
Key Observations
"As per , a person is said to commit penetrative assault if he penetrates his penis to any extent into the vagina... Therefore, it is not necessary that the hymen has to be ruptured to make out an offence under Section 3(a) of the Act." (Para 28)
"Even if the scientific evidence cannot be relied on... the testimony of PW1, the victim, is credible and believable and, therefore, there is no reason to disbelieve the prosecution case ." (Para 26)
"From the materials on record, I find no reason(s) to disbelieve the prosecution case ." (Para 29)
Verdict's Echo: Conviction Stands, Mercy in Measure
"The appeal is partly allowed. The conclusion regarding the finding of guilt... is confirmed. However, the substantive sentence of imprisonment is modified from 20 years to 14 years ." (Para 32)
This nuanced verdict bolsters child-centric justice under POCSO, prioritizing victim credibility over forensic perfection or medical myths. It signals to lower courts: stick to statutory sentencing bounds, especially pre-amendments. For families in Delhi's underbelly, it's a grim reminder—and a rallying cry against predators hiding as neighbors.
