The court affirmed the conviction for sexual assault under POCSO, emphasizing that consent is irrelevant when the victim is a minor, and upheld the probative value of DNA evidence in confirming the identity of the accused.

JUDGMENT

SANJEEV NARULA, J. 

1. The present appeal under Section 415 (2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 , [“ BNSS ”] Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 , [“ Cr.P.C .”] assails judgment of conviction dated 04^th December, 2024 and order on sentence dated 17^th January, 2025 passed by the Court of ASJ (FTSC), (POCSO)-01, South-West District, Dwarka Courts in SC No. 223/2020. These proceedings emanate from FIR No. 443/2020 registered at P.S. Uttam Nagar for the offences under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860[IPC] ,and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 ., “POCSO”

2. A conviction under Section 376 IPC read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act entails the gravest stigma and the severest of sentences; and therefore, this Court is tasked to examine whether the finding of guilt is borne out by reliable evidence and in accordance with settled legal principles. The jurisdiction under Section 415 (2) BNSS / Section 374 (2) CrPC is not confined to errors of law alone, but extends to a reappraisal of the evidence, ensuring that both the conviction and the sentence withstand the scrutiny of fairness, legality, and proportionality.

Factual Background

3. The case of the Prosecution is as follows:

3.1. On 6^th May, 2020, information was received at P.S. Uttam Nagar from DDU Hospital stating that a young girl, (‘K’, the Prosecutrix), had been brought by her mother for medical termination of pregnancy. The information was recorded vide DD Entry No. 30B, and the same was entrusted to ASI Manoj (PW-6), who, accompanied by W/Constable Premlata, proceeded to the hospital. After some time, the Investigating Officer,, [“IO”] W/SI Sushma (PW-12) also arrived at the hospital. Medical examination revealed that the Prosecutrix was 22 weeks pregnant. In the presence of her sister ‘N’ and father ‘D’, she gave a written complaint (Ex. PW-1/A) alleging that her elder brother, Ashish, the Appellant, had subjected her to sexual assault on two or three occasions, including once shortly after Holi, following which her menstrual cycle ceased in March 2020.

3.2. On this complaint, the subject FIR was registered and investigation set in motion. During investigation, her statement was also recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C ., where she stated that sexual relations had taken place with the Appellant “around one or two days before Holi,” but added that it was “with her consent” and that she did not wish to pursue proceedings., [Translation of “Holi se karib ek-do din pehle mere bhai aur mere beech sexual relations huye jo meri marzi se hua tha. Mai koi karyawahi nahi chahti”.] Nevertheless, chargesheet was filed and the Special Court took cognizance on 28th August, 2020.

3.3 By order dated 18^th September, 2020, charges were framed against the Appellant under Section 6 read with Section 5 (j)(ii) and (l) of the POCSO Act. The Appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

3.4. In support of its case, the Prosecution examined twelve witnesses, comprising the Prosecutrix and her immediate family members, the investigating officers, school and municipal record keepers, and the forensic examiner. For clarity and ease of reference, the witnesses are summarised in the table below: