Back
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Amit Mahajan, J
PRAMJEET@SANNI – Appellant
Versus
STATE NCT OF DELHI – Respondent
CRL.A.-869/2024
(A) Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 - Section 6 - Conviction for aggravated penetrative sexual assault on a minor - The appellant was sentenced to ten years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of ₹1,000 for raping a 13-year-old girl, supported by consistent testimony and corroborative medical evidence. (Paras 2, 9, 10, 39)
(B) Presumption of guilt - Under Section 29 of the POCSO Act, the court presumes guilt unless rebutted by the accused, which the appellant failed to do. (Paras 10, 38)
Facts of the case:
The appellant was accused of repeatedly sexually assaulting a minor victim, resulting in her pregnancy. The victim's consistent testimony and medical evidence supported the prosecution's case. (Paras 3, 4, 9)
Findings of Court:
The trial court found the victim's testimony credible and corroborated by medical evidence, leading to the conviction of the appellant. (Paras 9, 39)
Issues: The main issues included the credibility of the victim's testimony, the presumption of guilt under the POCSO Act, and the adequacy of evidence presented. (Paras 10, 38)
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the victim's consistent testimony, corroborated by medical evidence, was sufficient for conviction, and the presumption of guilt under the POCSO Act was not rebutted by the appellant. (Paras 10, 39)
Result: Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
1. The present appeal has been filed challenging the judgment dated 15.02.2024 (hereafter ‘the impugned judgment’) and the order on sentence dated 27.04.2024 (hereafter ‘the impugned order on sentence’), passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Special Court (POCSO), Dwarka Courts, New Delhi, in SC No. 26/2018, arising out of FIR No. 358/2017, registered at Police Station Uttam Nagar.
2. The learned Trial Court, by the impugned judgment convicted the appellant for the offence under Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (‘POCSO Act’) and by the impugned order on sentence, the appellant was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for ten years along with a fine of Rs.1,000.
3. The case of the prosecution is that on 17.06.2017, a complaint was lodged at PS Uttam Nagar by the grandmother of the minor victim (13 years old), alleging that the appellant/accused, a known person, had committed rape upon the minor victim in the absence of her guardian. The victim told the Investigating Officer that she had pain in her stomach. She further stated that the accused had repeatedly sexually assaulted her at her house, whenever her grandmother used to go to work. Consequently, the FIR in the present case was registered against the appellant for offences under Sections 376 of the IPC and Section 4 of the POCSO Act.
4. During the medical examination, the victim was found to be pregnant, and subsequently, her statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (‘CrPC’) was recorded, wherein she supported the allegations.
5. Consequently, the appellant was arrested on 16.11.2017.
6. Charges were framed against the appellant for offences under Section 6 read with Section 5(I) of the POCSO Act and in alternative under Section 376 of the IPC.
7. The prosecution cited 17 witnesses in support of its case including the victim (PW 3), victim’s grandmother (PW-9), Welfare Officer, CWC (PW-2), Dr. Dhananjay Kumar (PW-10), and Investigating Officer (PW-15).
8. The appellant denied the allegations in his statement under Section 313 of the CrPC and contested that he was being falsely implicated due to previous enmity since he had refused to marry the relative of the victim.
9. The learned Trial Court convicted the appellant of the alleged offences by the impugned judgment taking into consideration the testimony of the prosecution witnesses, especially the prosecutrix (PW-3), her grandmother (PW-9), and the Investigating Officer (PW- 15). The court found the prosecutrix’s statement to be consistent, credible, and free from material contradictions. Her testimony was corroborated by medical evidence, which confirmed her pregnancy, and by DNA evidence, which established that the appellant was the biological father of the foetus.
10. The learned Trial Court also considered the circumstantial evidence, including the appellant’s absconding for five months, which indicated a guilty mind and an attempt to evade arrest. The learned Trial Court, after analyzing the entire evidence in light of Section 29 of the POCSO Act, which presumes guilt in such cases unless rebutted, concluded that the appellant had failed to discharge his burden of proof and was guilty beyond reasonable doubt.
11. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned judgment is erroneous and unsustainable in law. He submitted that the identity of the accused was not properly established, as neither the FIR nor the initial complaint mentioned the appellant’s full address.
12. The learned counsel submitted that the prosecutrix’s statement was inconsistent. In her statement under Section 164 of the CrPC, she stated that the appellant ‘touched’ her and ‘lay over her’, whereas, during the trial, she alleged full penetration and that the appellant used to administer some drug to her and also threatened her.
13. The learned counsel submitted that the FSL report does not conclusively establish that the foetus DNA matched with that
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
