Back
Delhi HC Delivers Nuanced POCSO Verdict: Attempt Charge Trumps Full Conviction
In a measured intervention, the partly allowed an appeal by Sudarshan, convicting him for attempt to commit on a 4½-year-old girl under the , but slashing his trial court sentence from five years to three-and-a-half years' rigorous imprisonment. Justice Chandrasekharan Sudha emphasized that evidence supported the full offence—but strict charge-framing rules barred conviction beyond what was alleged. This ruling, from Sudarshan v. State (CRL.A. 1144/2016), underscores procedural safeguards in child protection cases.
A Child's Ordeal in a Quiet Delhi Lane
The incident unfolded on , around 2:30 PM in Prem Nagar-III, Gauri Shankar Enclave, Delhi. PW-12, a girl of about 4½ years who had just returned from school, visited the nearby grocery shop run by the accused's family to buy a toffee. According to her account, the shopkeeper (Sudarshan) pulled her inside, made her lie on her stomach, removed her underwear, climbed on her back, and "poured water" on her buttocks—interpreted by the court as likely semen.
Crying, she rushed home and confided in her mother (PW-11), who confronted the accused at his house. Police from Aman Vihar station registered FIR No. 730/2014 initially under , later invoking POCSO provisions. The trial court () framed charges solely for attempt to commit under r/w Sections 10 and 18 POCSO —not the completed offence. After trial, it convicted under r/w , sentencing to five years RI and ₹5,000 fine.
Defence Strikes at Credibility and Motive
Appellant's counsel highlighted multiple flaws: no injuries, bruises, or abrasions on the victim despite alleged force; no recovery of clothes or evidence of penetration/ejaculation; the child's tender age raised tutoring suspicions, given her detailed testimony; and a supposed financial dispute—victim's family allegedly owed money to accused's father, fabricating the case to evade repayment. Crucially, they argued the unamended charge for attempt precluded conviction for the completed offence.
The State and victim's counsel countered that the victim's consistent testimony (PW-12), corroborated by her mother (PW-11) and father (PW-9), was reliable—no contradictions emerged. They stressed POCSO covers assaults on children under 12, and her account proved physical contact with sexual intent under . Precedents like Ganesan v. State (2020) 10 SCC 573 affirm a credible child victim's suffices, needing no corroboration.
Navigating Charges: Procedure Over Substance
Justice Sudha meticulously dissected the evidence. The victim's prompt disclosure, consistent statements (FIR, Section 164, trial), and denial of tutoring held sway. Dismissing the defence, the court noted inconsistent motive claims—no proof of debt or extortion—and absence of injuries irrelevant, as charges weren't for penetrative assault.
Yet, the pivot: the charge explicitly stated
"attempting to commit wrong act,"
never amended to full offence.
POCSO
defines sexual assault as
"any other act with sexual intent involving
"
—fully matching the acts (undressing, mounting, "water" pouring). On a child under 12, it's aggravated under
, punishable up to seven years under
.
But conviction mismatched the charge.
"The accused has been charged only for an attempt... Therefore, the trial court apparently went wrong in convicting him for committing the offence of
, as he was never Charged for the same."
Under , attempt punishment caps at half the full term—three-and-a-half years maximum here.
Key Observations
“The act of the accused in taking PW12 inside his shop, undressing her, climbing on top of her and lying over her, and thereafter ‘pouring water’ on her body, would necessarily come within the expression ‘’ as contemplated in the latter part of of the .”
“Though the materials does make out a case of , the accused cannot be convicted for the same as he has been Charged only for an on PW12.”
“As held by the Apex Court in Ganesan v. State, (2020) 10 SCC 573, the of victim regarding the sexual assault, if found credible and reliable, requires no corroboration and is sufficient in law to sustain a conviction.”
Justice Served with Precision
The appeal succeeded partly: conviction modified to POCSO , sentence to 3½ years RI . Fine upheld. This doesn't acquit but corrects overreach, reminding courts: charge the offence precisely or amend explicitly. For future POCSO trials, it stresses matching verdict to indictment, potentially averting appeals while protecting child victims' testimonies. As news reports echoed, it reinforces that even strong evidence can't bypass procedure.
