Back
2025 Supreme(Del) 527
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
PRATHIBA M. SINGH, RAJNEESH KUMAR GUPTA, JJ.
Praveen @ Lallu - Appellant
Versus
State NCT of Delhi - Respondent
Crl. Appeal No. 826 of 2024, Crl. M. (Bail) No. 1481 of 2024
Decided On : 20-08-2025
For the Appellant : Kanhaiya Singhal, Rahul Bhaskar
For the Respondents: Ritesh Kumar Bahri, Divya Yadav, Lalit Luthra, Zishaan Iskandari, Madhur Mittal, Harish Kumar
Victims' testimony, if consistent and reliable, can solely support conviction under the POCSO Act, regardless of DNA evidence absence.
Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 374 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 363, 366, 376DA, 377, 34 - Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 - Section 6 - Appeal against conviction for kidnapping and sexual assault of a minor. Appellant convicted based on consistent victim testimony. Lack of DNA evidence does not negate the victim's oral testimony, supported by medical evidence. Court emphasizes victim's credibility and presumption of guilt for accused under POCSO. Conviction upholds in light of unimpeachable evidence. (Paras 6, 9, 21, 22)
Facts of the case:
The appellant kidnapped a minor from her lawful guardianship and assaulted her sexually with a co-accused. The prosecution's case included consistent testimony from the victim and corroborating medical evidence showing injury consistent with the assault.
Findings of Court:
The trial court established the victim's age based on school documents and held that the appellant's argument regarding identity discrepancies lacked merit.
Issues: Whether the victim's testimony was trustworthy and if the absence of DNA evidence undermines the conviction.
Ratio Decidendi: The court upheld that consistent testimony from the victim, despite minor discrepancies, is sufficient to warrant conviction, as corroborative evidence is not mandatory under POCSO in the presence of reliable oral testimony.
Result: Appeal dismissed, conviction maintained.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. appellant's conviction details and background (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. trial court findings on evidence and issues (Para 7) |
| 3. parties' arguments on evidence and conviction (Para 9 , 10) |
| 4. legal standards on conviction based on prosecutrix testimony (Para 20 , 21) |
| 5. final judgment and dismissal of appeal (Para 22 , 23 , 24 , 25) |
JUDGMENT :
RAJNEESH KUMAR GUPTA, J.
1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.
2. The present appeal is filed under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “the CrPC”) on behalf of the Appellant – Praveen @ Lallu to set aside the judgment dated 10th May, 2024 (hereinafter referred to as “the impugned judgment”) and the Order-onSentence dated 10th July, 2024 (hereinafter referred to as “the impugned order on sentence”) passed by the court of Additional Sessions Judge (SCPOCSO)-02, North – East District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as “the trial court”), in Sessions Case bearing SC No. 71/2019 arising out of FIR bearing No. 532/2018 registered at PS Karawal Nagar, Delhi. The Appellant, vide the impugned judgment, was held guilty for committing the offences punishable under Sections 363 /366/376DA/377/34 IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act and the Appellant, vide the impugned order on sentence was sentenced as follows :-
“(a) Under Section 363 of IPC:
Rigorous Imprisonment for Two Years and fine of Rupees Five Thousand Only (Rs. 5,000/-). In default of payment of fine, the convict shall further undergo Rigorous Imprisonment of six months.
(b) Under Section 366 of IPC:
Rigorous Imprisonment for Three Years and fine of Five Thousand Only (Rs. 5,000/-). In default of payment of fine, the convict shall further undergo Rigorous Imprisonment of six months.
(c) Under Section 376DA of IPC:
Rigorous Imprisonment for Life and fine of Rupees Ten Thousand (Rs. 10,000/-). In default of payment of fine, the convict shall further undergo Rigorous Imprisonment of twelve months.
(d) Under Section 377 of IPC:
Rigorous Imprisonment for Ten Years and fine of Rupees Ten Thousand Only (Rs. 10,000/-). In default of payment of fine, the convict shall further undergo Rigorous Imprisonment of six months.
All the sentences shall run concurrently. Benefit of Section 428 CrP.C. shall be granted to the Convict”
Brief Background:
3. Briefly stated, the prosecution’s case, as reflected in the charge sheet is that on 12th November, 2018 at about 09:00 PM, the Appellant kidnapped the Prosecutrix (‘assumed name-S’) from the lawful guardianship of her parents with the intention to commit illicit intercourse. After kidnapping the Prosecutrix, the Appellant, along with co-accused Kalu, who is stated to be absconding, took the Prosecutrix to a jungle and committed gang rape and carnal intercourse with the Prosecutrix against the order of nature.
4. After the medical examination and counselling of the Prosecutrix, the statement of the Prosecutrix was recorded by the police. On the basis of that statement, an FIR under Sections 363 /376D/377/34 IPC and Section 6 of POCSO Act was registered.
5. During investigation, the statement of the Prosecutrix was recorded under Section 164 of the CrPC. The Appellant was arrested on 29th November, 2018, and the TIP of the Appellant was conducted, where the Prosecutrix identified the Appellant. The co-accused Kalu was not arrested in this case as he had initially absconded and then passed away on 20th October, 2020. The statements of the witnesses conversant with the facts were recorded. Exhibits collected during the investigation were sent to FSL for examination.
6. Upon completion of investigation, chargesheet was filed against the Appellant. The prosecution, in order to prove its case, examined 13 witnesses. The statement of the Appellant was recorded under Section 313 of the CrPC, wherein the Appellant had denied the incriminating evidence and pleaded innocence and claimed false implication. The trial resulted in convicti
