The sole testimony of a victim in sexual assault cases can lead to conviction if credible, but must be consistent and of high quality to meet legal standards.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 376(AB) - Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 - Section 6 - Appeal against conviction for sexual assault - Conviction upheld for lesser charge under Section 18 of POCSO Act due to inconsistencies in victim's testimony - The court emphasized that the testimony of the prosecutrix must be credible and consistent to warrant conviction. (Paras 31, 36)

(B) Evidence - Testimony of prosecutrix - The court reiterated that the sole testimony of the prosecutrix can lead to conviction if found credible, but must be of 'sterling quality' and consistent throughout. (Paras 17, 20)

Facts of the case:
The appellant was convicted for sexually assaulting a minor, with the prosecution relying on the testimony of the victim and her mother, alongside medical evidence. The victim's age was established as 12 years at the time of the incident. (Paras 1-2)

Findings of Court:
The court found that while the victim's testimony had inconsistencies, it was sufficient to establish an attempt at aggravated penetrative sexual assault, leading to a modified conviction under Section 18 of POCSO. (Paras 31-32)

Issues: The main issues included the credibility of the victim's testimony and the implications of inconsistencies in her statements. (Paras 28-30)

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the victim's testimony, despite minor inconsistencies, was credible enough to uphold a conviction for a lesser charge, emphasizing the need for careful evaluation of evidence in sexual assault cases. (Paras 17, 31)

Result: The conviction was modified to ten years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine. (Para 32)

Table of Content
1. appeal filed against conviction (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4)
2. arguments by the appellant's counsel (Para 5 , 6 , 7)
3. court's analysis of evidence (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16)
4. court's reasoning on victim's testimony (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30)
5. conviction modified (Para 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37)

J U D G M E N T

DINESH KUMAR SHARMA,J:

1. The present appeal has been filed under Section 374(2) , challenging judgment dated 13.05.2021 and order on sentence dated 03.08.2021, passed by Learned Additional Sessions Judge-06 (POCSO), South East, Saket Courts, Delhi, in Case No. S.C. 428/2018, FIR No. 242/2018, under Section 376 AB of the IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act registered at PS Govind Puri, Delhi, whereby the appellant was convicted. The learned Trial Court vide order on sentence dated 03.08.2021 awarded rigorous imprisonment for 20 CRL.A. 288/2021 Page 1 of 30 Signature Not Verified years and fine of Rs. 10,000/-; in default of payment of the fine, the appellant was to undergo simple imprisonment for 1 month.

2. The facts in brief as recorded by the Ld. Trial Court are as under:

“2. Brief facts leading to the filing of the charge sheet against the accused are that on 08.7.2018 the victim child (herein after referred to as the prosecutrix) went to the Police Station Govindpuri with her mother and made the statement EX PW-1/A. She was sent to AIIMS hospital for medical examination. IO WSI Buglesh prepared the rukka EX PW 8/A and the FIR EX PW-4/A was registered U/S 376 IPC and 6 POCSO Act. IO prepared the site plan EX PW-1/C at the instance of the victim. The accused was arrested on 08.7.18. As per the school record the D.O.B. of the prosecutrix is 13.06.2006. The birth registration certificate issued by SDMC containing the same D.O.B is EX PW-2/B. Statement of the prosecutrix EX PW-I/D was recorded under Sec 164 Cr.P.C by Ld. M.M. on 10.07.2018. On completion of the investigation the charge sheet was filed citing 15 prosecution witnesses. It is mentioned in the charge sheet that the Doctor who examined the prosecutrix, had advised that she be admitted in the hospital but her mother refused. It is also mentioned that the Doctor had not supplied some papers of the MLC and had told that she would produce the same at the time of the evidence.

3. In support of its case the prosecution has examined 9 witnesses. Remaining witnesses were dropped in view of the statement of the Ld. Cl for the accused at bar dated 11.02.21. The documents to be proved through these witnesses were exhibited as EX P-1 to P5.

4. PW-1 is the prosecutrix. PW-2 is her mother. PW-3 is her father. Examination in chief of PW-3 was partly recorded on 30.01.20. His examination could not be completed as he unfortunately expired. PW-4 is the Duty officer Retd. SI Yad Ram who had registered the FIR. PW-5 is Mohd. Naseem who was the landlord of the house where the families of the accused and the prosecutrix were residing as tenants. The two incidents which are subject matter of the charge also happened in different portions of the same house as shown in the site plan. PW-6 Ms Sunita Paul is CRL.A. 288/2021 Page 2 of 30 Signature Not Verified the In-charge of the SDMC Primary School. She was examined to prove the school record containing the D.O.B. of the prosecutrix. PW-7 Ct. Girwar remained with the IO during the investigation and he is a witness of arrest of the accused. PW-8 is the IO WSI Buglesh and PW-9 is Ms ArunaMongia Sub-Registrar, Central Zone, SDMC.”

3. The statement of accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C on 30.03.2021. Ld. Trial Court after hearing the submissions of the parties recorded the conviction of the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 376(2)(n) IPC, Section 376 AB IPC, and Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012. The appellant has challenged the impugned order primarily on the following grounds:

a) Ld. Trial Court has failed to appreciate the evidenc

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2024 Supreme(Online)(DEL) 33254

HIGH COURT OF DELHIDinesh Kumar Sharma, JRAJA HALDER – AppellantVersusSTATE NCT OF DELHI – RespondentCRL.A.-288/2021

The sole testimony of a victim in sexual assault cases can lead to conviction if credible, but must be consistent and of high quality to meet legal standards.

HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Dinesh Kumar Sharma, J
RAJA HALDER – Appellant
Versus
STATE NCT OF DELHI – Respondent
CRL.A.-288/2021