Back
Cancels in POCSO Caretaker Case: 3-Year-Old Victim's Version Cannot Be Rejected Due to Absence of External Injuries
In a significant ruling regarding the protection of minors, the has set aside a lower court order that granted to a school caretaker accused of . Justice Vinod Kumar, while overturning the ’s decision, emphasized that the of a three-year-old victim cannot be scrutinized through the same lens as that of an adult, particularly where the child has provided a consistent narration of events.
The Case Background The incident, which transpired on , involved a three-year-old child and a caretaker at a junior school in Janakpuri, Delhi. According to the FIR (No. 104/2026), the victim disclosed to her mother that a man at her school had touched her private parts, causing pain and bleeding. The accused, who had served the institution for over thirty years in an administrative capacity, was arrested on .
Although the initially granted , citing the lack of physical injuries in the medical report and the belief that the accused had cooperated with the investigation, the State and the victim's mother sought relief from the High Court. They argued that the lower court had engaged in a "" by interpreting complex electronic evidence and the at a premature stage, ignoring the gravity of the POCSO (Protection of Children from Sexual Offences) charges.
A Sensitive Approach to Victim The High Court’s decision centered on the inherent vulnerability of the child victim. Addressing the ’s reliance on the absence of external physical evidence, Justice Vinod Kumar clarified that the delicate nature of such cases necessitates a different .
"Learned
missed a very important fact that the victim is barely three years old and such a small child cannot be equated with an adult victim,"
the Court observed. It further highlighted that a child may appear "incoherent" at times, but this does not invalidate their core recollection of an encounter, especially when they take the extra step of identifying both their assailant and the scene of the crime.
Key Observations The judgment offers a firm directive on how courts should weigh evidence in cases involving minors:
-
On the Victim’s Consistency:
"Victim identified the respondent as the offender. There is nothing on record at this stage to indicate any motive for falsely implicating the respondent by minor child or her parents."
-
On the Impact of Age:
"A child of such tender age may appear to be incoherent and sometimes even illogical but that does not mean that what a child is saying is incorrect."
-
On Judicial Prematurity:
"It was too early in a day to release the respondent on on these points ignoring the version of the victim."
Precedents and Legal Implications The High Court drew guidance from , where the underscored that courts must prioritize the of the and the extreme vulnerability of children over procedural leanings towards in the initial stages of a trial.
By distinguishing this case from others where the victim was mature or the investigation was complete, the Court reinforced the principle that for such grave offences should not be granted when the investigation is still in its infancy and forensic results—such as CCTV analysis and DNA reports—are yet to be finalized.
The Court’s Decision
Allowing the petitions, the
ordered the accused to surrender before the jurisdictional
on
, at 2:00 PM. This ruling serves as a vital reminder to trial courts that in cases involving sexual assault against children, the
"
"
principle remains paramount, and judicial discretion must be exercised with extreme caution, ensuring that the safety of the witness is balanced against the liberty of the accused.
