Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Sudhir Kumar Jain, J.
State - Appellant
Versus
Liyakat Ali & Anr. - Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 769 of 2023
Decided On : 13-12-2023
POCSO Act - Sexual Offences - 8, 9(m), 10, 18 - The court acquitted the respondents primarily on grounds of material contradictions and unexplained delay in lodging FIR. The court found the testimonies of the victim, mother, and complainant consistent, cogent, reliable, trustworthy, and corroborating with each other in material particulars and could be safely relied on. The court held that the contradictions and discrepancies in evidence led by the prosecution were minor and insignificant variations and did not affect the case of the prosecution. The court also observed that the delay in lodging the FIR was properly explained by the complainant. The court set aside the acquittal of the respondent no.1 for the offence punishable under section 10 of POCSO Act and acquitted the respondent no.2 for other offences.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved an incident of sexual assault on a minor girl by the respondent no.1. The complainant, father of the victim, reported the incident to the police after an unexplained delay. The trial court acquitted the respondents primarily on grounds of material contradictions and unexplained delay in lodging FIR.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the testimonies of the victim, mother, and complainant consistent, cogent, reliable, trustworthy, and corroborating with each other in material particulars and could be safely relied on. The court held that the contradictions and discrepancies in evidence led by the prosecution were minor and insignificant variations and did not affect the case of the prosecution. The court also observed that the delay in lodging the FIR was properly explained by the complainant. The court set aside the acquittal of the respondent no.1 for the offence punishable under section 10 of POCSO Act and acquitted the respondent no.2 for other offences.
Issues: The issues revolved around the credibility of the testimonies of the victim, mother, and complainant, the significance of minor contradictions and discrepancies in the evidence, and the explanation for the delay in lodging the FIR.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that minor contradictions and discrepancies in the evidence cannot be fatal to the case of the prosecution. The court also highlighted that the delay in lodging the FIR, if properly explained, would not be fatal to the case of the prosecution. The court set aside the acquittal of the respondent no.1 for the offence punishable under section 10 of POCSO Act and acquitted the respondent no.2 for other offences.
Final Decision: The court set aside the acquittal of the respondent no.1 for the offence punishable under section 10 of POCSO Act and acquitted the respondent no.2 for other offences. The appeal was partly allowed.
JUDGMENT
Sudhir Kumar Jain, J. - The present appeal is filed under article 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "the Code") to impugn judgment dated 08.03.19 (hereinafter referred to as "the impugned judgment") passed by the court of Sh. Amit Kumar, Additional Sessions Judge (Special Court, POCSO ACT), North West, Rohini Courts, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as "the trial court") in Sessions Case no.157/2015 arising out of FIR no 1134/2014 registered under sections 354/323/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as "IPC") and under section 8 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as "POCSO Act") at P.S. Sultan Puri.
2. The factual background of the case is that FIR bearing no 1134/2014 dated 05.10.2014 was got registered under sections 354/323/506/34 IPC and under section 8 of POCSO Act on the basis of the complaint made by father of the victim (hereinafter referred as "the complainant"). The complainant on 05.10.2014 along with prosecutrix/victim (hereinafter referred to as "Victim") came to PS Sulatn Puri and met ASI Rajender Singh Tomar who recorded statement of the complainant. The complainant stated that he along with family was residing at Sultan Puri and was doing tailoring work. The victim on 01.10.2014 along with her two brothers was sleeping on the roof and the complainant at about 1.30 am went to roof for smoking where saw that Liyakat (hereinafter referred to as "the respondent no. 1") who was residing on the first floor of the same building had made the victim sleep close to him. The complainant lifted the victim from there and made her sleep with brothers and did not speak to anyone due to late night. The complainant next day went to work and returned back at about 9.00 pm. The wife of the complainant asked the victim to go to the roof for sleeping but the complainant started weeping and refused to go to the roof. The victim told that the respondent no.1dragged her to his bed and kissed her and also tried to remove her trouser (lower). The complainant asked the victim as to why she did not inform in the night itself to which she told that she was scared. The complainant immediately called Jaffar (hereinafter referred to as "the respondent no. 2"), the elder brother of the respondent no1. The respondent no.2 did not listen to the complainant and said that the complainant is falsely implicating the respondent no. 1. The complainant on the next day went to his work and came back in night of 03.10.2014. The complainant visited room of the respondent no. 2 but he was not found there. The complainant asked the wife of the respondent no. 2 not to send the respondent no.1 to sleep on the roof. However, the respondent no.1 again went to roof to sleep in night. The complainant again approached the respondent no. 2 but the respondent no. 2 threatened the complainant to commit wrong act with the victim and the wife of the complainant. The respondents no.1 and 2 had also beaten the complainant when complainant told them for approaching the police. The complainant came back to his room and slept therein and on the next day i.e. 04.10.2014 went to his work and came back at 9.00 pm. The respondents no. 1 and 2 came to house of the complainant and tried to assault him with a scissor. Thereafter the complainant approached police station along with the victim. The victim was taken to the hospital for medical examination but the victim refused for her internal medical examination. The present FIR bearing no. 1134/2014 dated 05.10.2014 was got registered under sections 354/323/506/34 IPC and under section 8 of POCSO Act at P.S. Sultan Puri.
2.1 SI Deepak Purohit (hereinafter referred to as "the Investigating Officer") was entrusted with further investigation. The respondent no.1 was arrested. The statement of the victim under section 164 of the Code was recorded on 07.10.2014 wherein the victim stated that on 01.10.2014 when she was sle
The main legal point established in the judgment is that minor contradictions and discrepancies in the evidence, as well as the delay in lodging the FIR, if properly explained, would not be fatal to ....
Minor discrepancies in victim testimony do not undermine the credibility of sexual assault claims under POCSO; conviction can still be upheld based on consistent evidence.
For offences punishable under Section 376 of IPC and Section 4 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, evidence of victim itself is sufficient – It does not need corroboration of te....
Sexual Assault - Recording of confessions and statements - Conviction upheld - Evidence of prosecution witnesses as well as initial statement given by victim child under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. substa....
A conviction for sexual assault against a minor can be based on the sole, consistent testimony of the victim. However, while minor delays or lack of physical injury do not necessarily invalidate such....
The court upheld the conviction for aggravated sexual assault under the POCSO Act, emphasizing the sufficiency of evidence despite procedural claims of the defence.
The testimony of a child victim is sufficient for conviction in sexual assault cases if credible, even amidst minor discrepancies and delays in FIR filing.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
