Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Del) 6897
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Manoj Kumar Ohri, J
..... – Appellant
Versus
STATE NCT OF DELHI – Respondent
CRL.A. 1030/2024
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Anubhav Singh, Mr. Karan Ahuja, Mr. Nitin Kumar, Ms. Maria Mary
For the Respondents: Mr. Pradeep Gahalot, SI Vipin, Mr. Zeeshan Diwan, Mr. Harsha
Testimony of a credible child victim can solely support a conviction under POCSO; corroboration is not always necessary unless significant discrepancies exist and foundational facts are proven.
Headnote:(A) The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 - Sections 5(m), 5(p), 6, and Section 377 IPC - Conviction of the accused for sexual assault on a minor upheld. Testimony of child victim deemed credible despite some independent witness contradictions, corroborated by medical evidence. Court confirms foundational facts established warranting conviction under Section 29 POCSO. (Paras 12, 18)
(B) Testimony of a child victim - Competence is presumed if understood questions, not invalidated due to age. Child testimony alone suffices if credible and inspires confidence, even in absence of corroboration, unless significant discrepancies arise. (Para 13)
Facts of the case:
The appellant, charged with sexually assaulting his minor nephew, was convicted based on the child's testimony, which was substantiated by corroborating evidence from witnesses and DNA results. The victim was 7 years old during the incident.
Findings of Court:
Conviction stands affirmed, bolstered by the credible testimony of the child and an identification of the appellant by an independent witness.
Issues: Establishing the credibility of the child victim's testimony and the admissibility of evidence in absence of corroboration.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that primary testimony of a credible child witness, coupled with supporting circumstantial evidence, is sufficient for conviction, affirming the appropriate application of legal standards under the POCSO Act.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. conviction appeal against judgment of pocso act. (Para 1) |
| 2. details on victim's testimony and supporting evidence. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 12) |
| 3. arguments regarding reliability and independent witnesses. (Para 9 , 10) |
| 4. legal standards for child witnesses and presumption of guilt. (Para 13 , 18) |
| 5. final ruling against the appeal, affirming conviction. (Para 16) |
1. By way of the present appeal, the appellant seeks to assail the judgment of conviction dated 22.07.2024 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge (FTSC) (POCSO), New Delhi in SC No. 757/2018 arising out of FIR No. 359/2018 registered under Section 6 POCSO at P.S. Keshav Puram, whereby he has been convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 5(m) & (p) POCSO punishable under Section 6 POCSO and Section 377 IPC. Vide order on sentence dated 09.09.2024, the appellant was sentenced to undergo RI for 10 years for the offence punishable under Section 377 IPC; and further sentenced to undergo RI for 10 years for the offence punishable under Sections 5(m) & (p) POCSO punishable under Section 6 POCSO. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently and benefit under Section 428 Cr.P.C. was given to the appellant.
2. The Appellant is real uncle of the victim. The facts in a nutshell, as noted by the Trial Court, are extracted hereunder:
“In brief, as per charge-sheet, the case was registered through WSI Tulika on 08.09.2018. The statement of victim 'G' was recorded in question answer form before his mother 'S' and he was counseled by the counselor. The victim was medically examined at BJRM Hospital. As per the MLC and his statement, the victim had gone to park with his chacha to roam around his dog. During his statement, the victim stated that the accused i.e. his chacha did “galat kaam” with him. On asking that what “galat kaam” was done by his chacha to him, then he answered that “chacha ne meri kachhi utari aur apni bhi aur apni susu meri potty wali jagah pichhe dali”. On inquiry, he disclosed the name of chacha as ‘A’ i.e. the accused. On perusal of MLC and statement of the victim, the FIR for offence U/s 6 POCSO Act was registered. The further investigation was marked to SI Bachchu Singh. The further investigation was done. The accused was arrested, his disclosure statement was recorded. He was medically examined. The exhibits of accused and victim were sent to FSL. The site plan was prepared. The statement of victim was got recorded U/s 164 CrPC wherein he deposed similar facts as stated in his statement. The age documents of the victim were collected and his date of birth was verified as 27.08.2011. After completion of investigation, the charge-sheet was filed for offence U/s 6 POCSO Act. During trial, the FSL result was filed on record by moving application by SI Shivali. As per the result of DNA analysis, the alleles from the source of exhibit ‘4a’ (blood collection of accused, A) are accounted (matching) in the alleles from the source of exhibit '2' (cotton wool swab of anul swab of victim G).”
3. After completion of investigation, the charge-sheet was filed and charges were framed against the appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 5(m) & (p) POCSO punishable under Section 6 POCSO and Section 377 IPC. The prosecution examined 18 witnesses in total out of which the primary witnesses were examined as follows- the victim as PW-1; the mother of the victim, i.e. ‘S’, as PW-3; independent witness, namely “Prem”, as PW-7; ‘A’, the cousin of the victim, as PW-9; and other independent witnesses, namely Chetan Swaroop and Sonu, were examined as PW-10 and PW-11 respectively. The date of birth of the victim was proved by one Ghazala Parvez, who was examined as PW-12. The remaining witnesses were police officials, doctors, or officers who deposed as to various aspects of the investigation.
4. The victim was proved to be 7 years old at the time of the incident in question. Neither in trial nor in the present appeal was any contest ma
