Beyond the Sentence: Delhi High Court Corrects Procedural Error in POCSO Appeal

In a significant judgment regarding procedural fairness and the interpretation of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, the High Court of Delhi has modified the sentence of an individual convicted of sexually assaulting a minor. While upholding the credibility of the victim’s testimony, the Court corrected a critical legal discrepancy between the charge framed and the final conviction.

The Backdrop: A Dispute in Prem Nagar

The case dates back to July 10, 2014, when a four-and-a-half-year-old girl, while visiting a local shop in Delhi’s Prem Nagar, was allegedly subjected to a sexual assault by the shopkeeper, Sudarshan. The incident, promptly reported by the victim’s mother, led to a trial in the Rohini District Courts. The trial court, accepting the evidence provided by the young victim and her parents, found the accused guilty under Section 9(m) and Section 10 of the POCSO Act, sentencing him to five years of rigorous imprisonment.

The Legal Tug-of-War

On appeal, the defense raised several contentions, asserting that the prosecution’s case lacked physical evidence, such as bodily injuries or the recovery of the victim's clothing. Furthermore, the appellant argued that the conviction was fundamentally flawed because the trial court had convicted him for a "committed" offence, despite the charge sheet specifically accusing him only of an attempt to commit aggravated sexual assault.

The prosecution countered by emphasizing the consistency of the victim’s testimony and her mother’s account, supported by the precedent established in Ganesan v. State , which affirms that the sole testimony of a minor victim is sufficient to sustain a conviction if deemed credible.

Key Observations: The Court’s Reasoning

Hon'ble Ms. Justice Chandrasekharan Sudha acknowledged the strength of the victim's eyewitness account but focused heavily on the procedural mandate of the trial proceedings:

• On the Reliability of Testimony: "As held by the Apex Court in Ganesan v. State, (2020) 10 SCC 573, the sole testimony of victim regarding the sexual assault, if found credible and reliable, requires no corroboration and is sufficient in law to sustain a conviction."
• On the Charge Anomaly: "Though the materials does make out a case of aggravated sexual assault, the accused cannot be convicted for the same as he has been Charged only for an attempt to commit aggravated sexual assault on PW12."
• On Sentencing Limits: "Half of the maximum of seven years of imprisonment provided under Section 10 would be three and a half years."

A Correction of Law

The High Court’s ruling provides a vital reminder of the necessity for trial courts to remain tethered to the charges framed. Because the trial court never amended the charges from "attempt" to "commission" of the offence, the High Court held that it was legally incorrect to convict the appellant for the completed act.

Consequently, the Court partly allowed the appeal. Recognizing the offence as an "attempt" under Section 18 of the POCSO Act, the judge recalculated the sentence. Under Section 10, the maximum penalty is seven years; the Court ruled that for an attempt, the sentence should be half of that maximum. The appellant’s sentence was thus modified from five years to three and a half years of rigorous imprisonment.

This judgment serves as a precedent for the importance of precision in criminal litigation, ensuring that while the protection of victims remains the paramount goal of the POCSO Act, the rights of the accused to be tried only on properly framed charges are strictly upheld.