Back
2024 Supreme(Del) 975
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
SURESH KUMAR KAIT, MANOJ JAIN, JJ.
State - Appellant
Versus
P.D.D. - Respondent
Crl.A. 295 of 2021, CRL.A. 459 of 2020
Decided on : 14-05-2024
For the Appellants:Ms. Manjeet Arya, APP for State with SI Yamini Vats, PS Patel Nagar in Crl. A. 295/2021, Ms. Tara Narula and Mr. Harshvardhan Jain, Advocates
For the Respondents:Mr. Kamlesh Kr. Mishra, Mr. Dipak Raj, Mr. Bibhuti Bhushan Mishra, Mr. Kailash Kr. Jha, Mr. Anubhav Gupta, Mr. Ravi Ranjan Mishra, Mr. Aditya, Ms. Shweta Priya, Mr. Anish Raj, Mr. Deep Raj, Ms. Renu, Ms. Shivani Verma, Ms. Samishti Solomons, Mr. Nitin Kr. Nayak and Ms. Tripti Jugal, Ms. Manjeet Arya, APP for State with SI Yamini Vats, PS Patel Nagar. Mr. Kamlesh Kr. Mishra, Mr. Dipak Raj, Mr. Bibhuti Bhushan Mishra, Mr. Kailash Kr. Jha, Mr. Anubhav Gupta, Mr. Ravi Ranjan Mishra, Mr. Aditya, Ms. Shweta Priya, Mr. Anish Raj, Mr. Deep Raj, Ms. Renu, Ms. Shivani Verma, Ms. Samishti Solomons, Mr. Nitin Kr. Nayak and Ms. Tripti Jugal, Advocates
The testimony of the victim in sexual assault cases is sufficient for conviction if credible, and delay in reporting may be excused based on socio-cultural factors affecting victims.
Headnote:(A) Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act - Section 6 - Indian Penal Code - Sections 323, 506 - Acquittal of accused for aggravated penetrative sexual assault upon minor daughter - Court finds trial court misread evidence as contradictions were trivial and superficial; victim's testimony was of sterling quality, not requiring corroboration. (Paras 106, 82)
(B) Delay in Reporting - Delay in lodging FIR not fatal if satisfactorily explained - Testimony of victim credible; victim’s fear under paternal threat explained delay. (Paras 29, 30)
(C) Presumption and Burden of Proof under POCSO Act - The consequences of the presumptions under Sections 29 and 30 of POCSO Act necessitate proving innocence by the accused based upon beyond reasonable doubt. (Paras 88, 89)
Facts of the case:
Respondent was accused of sexually assaulting his underage daughter for two years. Victim reported in 2013 after escalating abuse led her to confide in her mother. Respondent alleged charges were false due to marital discord. Court found defense lacked evidence.
Findings of Court:
Trial court's acquittal was overturned for misinterpreting evidence; victim's testimony was reliable and credible.
Issues: The main issues were whether delay in reporting was fatal and whether victim's testimony warranted conviction without corroboration.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the sole testimony of a victim can suffice for conviction if it instills confidence. The delay was contextualized considering socio-economic factors that inhibit timely reporting of sexual assault.
Result: Appeals allowed; respondent convicted.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. appeals against acquittal of respondent. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. factual background of the case. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 3. arguments supporting the appeals. (Para 17 , 18) |
| 4. court analysis and observations. (Para 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26) |
| 5. legal standards under pocso act. (Para 88 , 89 , 90 , 92) |
| 6. final decision and orders. (Para 106 , 107 , 108 , 109 , 110 , 111) |
JUDGMENT :
MANOJ JAIN, J.
1. Respondent PDD (name withheld) was charged and tried for committing aggravated penetrative sexual assault upon his own daughter and vide impugned judgment[Judgment dated 07.06.2019 passed by Learned Trial Court in FIR No. 14/2013, PS Patel Nagar], he has been acquitted of all the charges.
2. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment, State had filed petition seeking leave to appeal. Such petition was registered as Crl. L.P. 651/2019. Leave to appeal was granted on 06.10.2021 and resultantly, said petition was re-registered as Criminal Appeal No. 295/2021.
3. Simultaneously, the daughter of respondent, who would be referred to as victim in the present judgment, has also filed appeal against the same judgment. Her mother and brother are co-appellants. Their such appeal has been registered as Criminal Appeal No. 459/2020.
4. Since both the appeals emanate from the same judgment and since similar contentions have been raised therein, these are being disposed of by this common judgment.
FACTUL MATRIX
5. Accused (respondent herein) used to work as security guard and his wife (PW3) was also working as security guard. They had two children, a daughter (victim herein) and a son (PW4).
6. Victim came to Police Station Patel Nagar on 19.01.2013 and revealed that her father had been sexually assaulting her for quite some time. She claimed that one day, when her father was jobless, he did not let her go to school and during noon hour, when she was alone at the house with him, as her mother was away to work and her brother in school, her father made her sleep along his side. He then touched her private parts and when she resisted, he rebuked her. He then sexually assaulted her. She divulged about the above incident to her mother but when her mother confronted him, he scolded her mother. He even asked her as to why she had told everything to her mother. She also revealed that her father had been, thus, exploiting her for last two years and sexually assaulted her lastly on 04.01.2013.
7. She stated to the police that on 18.01.2013, her father was dead- drunk and when her mother returned from her workplace, he hurled filthy abuses upon her and beat her up. Next morning, her brother (PW4) (son of respondent) was also not spared.
8. This eventually triggered her to rush to police station and to lodge a report.
9. Her statement was recorded by the police and FIR was registered.
10. Victim was sent for medical examination and documents regarding her age were collected. Statements of victim and her brother were also got recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C.
11. Respondent was arrested, charge-sheeted and sent up to face trial.
12. He was charged for commission of offences under Section 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO Act), Section 506 IPC (for threatening victim) and Section 323 IPC (for beating his son and wife). He pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
13. Prosecution examined thirteen witnesses viz. PW1 HC Hanuman (duty officer), PW2 (victim), PW3 (mother of victim), PW4 (brother of victim), PW5 Ct. Parveen (police official), PW6 Ct. Mukesh (police official), PW7 Ms. Aanchal (learned Magistrate who recorded the statement of victim under Section 164 Cr.P.C.), PW8 Ms. Poonam (Principal of the school of victim), PW9 W/Ct. Jyoti (police official), PW10 Ct. Pradeep (police official), PW11 Ct. Satpal Singh (police official), PW12 Dr. Prashant and PW13 SI Kiran Sethi (investigating officer).
14. Accused, in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., pleaded innocence and claimed that he had been falsely implic
