1. Appeal against conviction for aggravated penetrative sexual assault under POCSO Act and IPC. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Del) 1216
2026 DHC 8506
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
MADHU JAIN, J.
Suraj Kumar – Appellant
Versus
The State (Govt Of NCT Of Delhi) & Anr. – Respondents
Crl.A. 143 of 2026 & CRL.M.(BAIL) 278 of 2026
Decided On : 30-09-2026
Advocates Appeared :
For the Appellant : Ms. Swati Verma, Adv.
For the Respondents : Mr. Hemant Mehla, Appellant, Mr. Amarlal and Ms. Gauri Kumar, Advs. for Victim, W/SI Athine, P.S. Burari.
Important Points
Statutory presumptions under Sections 29 and 30 of the POCSO Act do not absolve the court from objectively analyzing evidence. Material contradictions in the victim's testimony and lack of medical corroboration can rebut these presumptions, leading to acquittal if foundational facts are not established.
Subject
Criminal Law - Sexual Offences
Act Referred
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023: S.415, S.528
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: S.374, S.482, S.164, S.161, S.313, S.428, S.357A
Indian Penal Code, 1860: S.376, S.451, S.342, S.363, S.376-A-B, S.71
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012: S.6, S.29, S.30, S.33(8)
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Rules, 2020: R.9
Indian Evidence Act: S.65B
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: S.374, S.482, S.164, S.161, S.313, S.428, S.357A
Indian Penal Code, 1860: S.376, S.451, S.342, S.363, S.376-A-B, S.71
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012: S.6, S.29, S.30, S.33(8)
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Rules, 2020: R.9
Indian Evidence Act: S.65B
Headnote
(A) POCSO Act - Statutory Presumptions - Sections 29 and 30 - Presumptions of guilt do not dispense with the need for an objective appreciation of prosecution evidence; inherent inconsistencies, contradictions, and gaps in the prosecution case can be relied upon to rebut the statutory presumption. (Para 45)
(B) Evidence - Testimony of Prosecutrix - Reliability - While the testimony of a victim can form the sole basis of conviction, it must inspire confidence and be free from material infirmities; material improvements or inconsistencies between the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and the deposition before the Trial Court create reasonable doubt. (Para 47)
(C) POCSO Act - Foundational Facts - Burden of Proof - The statutory presumption under Section 29 does not arise automatically upon registration of a case; the prosecution must first establish the foundational facts constituting the alleged offence through cogent and reliable evidence. (Para 46)
Issues: Whether the conviction of the appellant under the POCSO Act and IPC could be sustained given the material contradictions in the testimonies of the prosecutrix and her mother and the absence of corroborative medical evidence.
(B) Evidence - Testimony of Prosecutrix - Reliability - While the testimony of a victim can form the sole basis of conviction, it must inspire confidence and be free from material infirmities; material improvements or inconsistencies between the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and the deposition before the Trial Court create reasonable doubt. (Para 47)
(C) POCSO Act - Foundational Facts - Burden of Proof - The statutory presumption under Section 29 does not arise automatically upon registration of a case; the prosecution must first establish the foundational facts constituting the alleged offence through cogent and reliable evidence. (Para 46)
Issues: Whether the conviction of the appellant under the POCSO Act and IPC could be sustained given the material contradictions in the testimonies of the prosecutrix and her mother and the absence of corroborative medical evidence.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- crime and sentencing
- practice and procedure
-
statutory interpretation
-
protection of children from sexual offences act, 2012
- sections 29 and 30 (Para 46)
-
protection of children from sexual offences act, 2012
Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Ms. Swati Verma
For the Respondents: Mr. Hemant Mehla, Mr. Amarlal, Ms. Gauri Kumar
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Ms. Swati Verma
For the Respondents: Mr. Hemant Mehla, Mr. Amarlal, Ms. Gauri Kumar
Table of Contents
2. Appellant argued inconsistencies in victim's testimony and lack of medical evidence. State contended testimony was consistent and credible. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 )
3. Material contradictions between prosecutrix's testimony and earlier statements, including inconsistencies in mother's testimony, cast doubt on prosecution case. (Para 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 43 , 46 , 47 , 48 )
4. Presumptions under POCSO Act do not dispense with objective appreciation of evidence; inherent inconsistencies may rebut the presumption. (Para 46 , 47 )
5. Appeal allowed. Conviction and sentence set aside. Appellant to be released forthwith. (Para 49 , 50 , 51 )
6. What is the effect of material inconsistencies in the prosecutrix's testimony on a POCSO conviction?
Material contradictions between the prosecutrix's testimony and earlier statements create reasonable doubt, and the prosecution case may fail. (Para 48 )
7. Do presumptions under Sections 29 and 30 of POCSO Act dispense with judicial scrutiny of evidence?
No. These presumptions do not dispense with an objective appreciation of evidence; inherent inconsistencies may rebut the presumption. (Para 46 )
8. Can inconsistencies in the testimony of the victim's mother affect the prosecution's case?
Yes. Material contradictions in the mother's testimony regarding key particulars, such as where the victim was found, can create doubt. (Para 40 , 41 )
JUDGMENT :
MADHU JAIN, J.
1. The present criminal appeal has been filed under Section 415 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, read with Section 528 thereof (corresponding to Sections 374 and 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “Cr.P.C.”) assailing the judgment dated 19.11.2025 and the order on sentence dated 16.12.2025 passed by the learned ASJ (FTSC) (POCSO)-01, Central, Tis Hazari District Courts, Delhi, in FIR No. 290/2022, registered at P.S. Burari under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as “IPC”) and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as “POCSO Act”) whereby the appellant was convicted and sentenced for the offences for which he was charged.
The brief facts of the case, as emerging from the impugned order, are as follows:
2. In brief, the case of the prosecution is that on 20.03.2022, the victim/complainant, Ms. ‘S’ (whose complete name and other particulars have been withheld to protect her identity), made a complaint alleging that the accused, Suraj Kumar, who was her neighbour, used to call and seduce her to meet him. It is alleged that on 12.03.2022, at about 1:00 a.m., when the victim had gone downstairs to attend to nature’s call, the accused allegedly came there, stifled her, took her to his room and committed aggravated penetrative sexual assault upon her. Owing to fear, she did not disclose the incident to anyone. It is further alleged that on the following day, the accused again committed rape upon her and, on the night of 19.03.2022, again took the victim with him and slept with her. When the victim’s mother woke up and found her missing, she searched for her, whereafter the accused allegedly pushed the victim out. The victim was thereafter medically examined at Aruna Asaf Ali Government Hospital, and the present case was registered.
3. On the basis of the victim’s complaint, FIR No. 290/2022 was registered at P.S. Burari for offences punishable under Sections 376 and 363 of the IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act. The accused was arrested and investigation was carried out. During investigation, the victim was medically examined at Aruna Asaf Ali Government Hospital and her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate.
4. The investigating agency also collected documents from the concerned school to ascertain the age of the victim. Upon completion of investigation, the chargesheet was filed before the Court.
5. On 14.10.2022, a formal charge for the commission of offences u/s 451/342/363 IPC, 376-A-B IPC r/w 376(2)(n) IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act was framed against accused Suraj Kumar by learned trial court.
6. To prove its case against the accused and discharge its burden, the prosecution examined six witnesses before the learned Trial Court, whose testimonies have been discussed in the impugned judgment as under:
“6. PW-1 is victim Ms. ‘S’ herself. Her testimony is being reproduced as under:-
“Q. Aapke saath kya hua tha?
Ans. March, 2022 (tareekh mujhe theek se yaad nahi hai) raat ko mere pet (stomach) mein dard hua tha, toh main fresh hone ke liye ghar se neeche gayi thi, jahan bathroom baney hue hai. Hum log 1st floor par rehte hai. Jab main washroom use karke upar apne ghar jaane lagi toh accused Suraj ne pichche se aa kar apne hath se mera mooh band kar diya tha. Uske baad accused Suraj mujhe apne kamre mein le gaya aur fir usne mujhe apne bistar par leta diya tha. Fir accused Suraj ne mere kapde utaar diye aur mere sath galat kaam kiya tha.
“Q. ‘Galat Kaam’ se aapka kya matlab hai?
Ans. Accused Suraj ne apne susu karne wali jagah ko mere susu karne wali jagah mein daal diya tha.
Q. Fir kya hua?
Ans. Meri mummy chilla rahi thi aur mujhe dhoondh rahi thi.”
Thereafter, the victim stated:
“Toh meri Mummy ki awaz sun kar accused Suraj ne mujhe chaur (leave kar) diya aur mujhe kapde pehna kar bola ki jaao apne ghar jaao. Fir main apne
