Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Del) 7000
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Vivek Chaudhary, Manoj Jain, JJ
STATE NCT OF DELHI – Appellant
Versus
KARNAIL SINGH – Respondent
CRL.A. 672/2023
For the Respondents:Mr. Ravi Nayak, Advocate along with respondent in person
The acquittal of the accused was upheld due to insufficient evidence, contradictory testimonies, and procedural adherence concerning the evaluation of minor's statements.
Headnote:(A) Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 - Section 6 - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 313 - Acquittal of accused for sexually assaulting a minor girl - Acquittal upheld due to insufficient evidence including lack of medical and forensic support and contradictions in witness statements. (Paras 11, 12, 27)
(B) Acquittal - Standard of proof applicable - Conviction cannot be based on retracted statements and without corroboration from credible evidence. A trial court's acquittal can be reversed only when it is demonstrated that such judgment was based on an erroneous view of law, or was perverse. (Paras 12, 27)
Facts of the case:
The respondent was acquitted of charges under the POCSO Act and IPC after the trial court found that the victim and other witnesses contradicted the prosecution's narrative, leading to doubts about the prosecution's claims including determination of the victim's age, which was never substantiated.
Findings of Court:
The learned Trial Court acquitted the accused based on a detailed examination of evidence, noting the lack of medical corroboration and inconsistent testimony of the key witnesses, including the victim.
Issues: The core issues addressed were the credibility of the victim's testimony, the age determination of the victim, and the existence of compelling evidence proving the guilt of the accused.
Ratio Decidendi: The acquittal was affirmed on the grounds that the court is bound to interfere only when a trial court's conclusions are blatantly unreasonable or illegal, which was not the case here. The factual inconsistencies meant that the prosecution failed to discharge its burden of proof.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. discussion of child witness reliability and standards for appeal against acquittal. (Para 2 , 7 , 8 , 12 , 15) |
| 2. introduction of case and summary of charges. (Para 3 , 4 , 6 , 11) |
| 3. overview of the appeal against acquittal of respondent. (Para 5) |
| 4. details of the investigation and trial. (Para 10) |
| 5. arguments presented against the acquittal detailing victim and witness testimonies. (Para 13 , 19 , 20) |
| 6. judicial review standards for acquittal. (Para 14 , 17 , 22) |
| 7. discussion on witness credibility and hostile testimonies. (Para 16 , 18) |
| 8. conclusion and dismissal of appeal. (Para 27) |
2. Let us take note of the relevant facts.
3. Respondent was sent up to face trial for committing offences of penetrative sexual assault upon a minor girl and for threatening and intimidating her.
4. Since the case pertains to sexual assault upon a minor girl, she would be referred to as ‘victim S’ in the present judgment.
5. Investigation took off on the basis of receipt of DD No. 11A at PS Ali Pur which was to the effect that a girl aged 11-12 years had been raped.
6. Police swung into action and contacted victim S who had already reached SRHC Hospital, Narela. Her MLC was collected wherein she had given history of sexual assault and penile penetration. In her statement, she revealed that on 25.07.2015, she had gone to the house of her paternal grandmother. Since her grandmother had gone out, she was alone at her house. Accused, who was their neighbor, came there and threatened her and raped her. When she shouted, her grandmother reached and on noticing her, the accused fled away.
7. Necessary investigation was carried out. Statement of victim S was also got recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. in which she indicted the accused, who was arrested for commission of offences under Sections 4 & 10 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (in short POCSO Act) and under Sections 376/377/354B/451/506 IPC.
8. Accused was, eventually, charged for offences under Section 6 of POCSO Act and under Section 376(2)(i) & 506 IPC to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
9. Prosecution examined thirteen witnesses, including victim S, her mother and grandmother. Concerned police officials and doctors also entered into witness box.
10. Accused, in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., while denying his involvement, claimed that he had been falsely implicated. He also revealed that father of victim S was a bad-character (BC) of the area and since he (accused) had deposed against him in a criminal case, he had been implicated at the behest of her father. He also examined his one neighbour in order to substantiate that father of victim S was habitual offender and that he (accused herein) was a witness against him in one such case.
11. Learned Trial Court, while acquitting the accused, went on to hold that prosecution could not even prove that the victim was minor at the time of occurrence and that there was no medical or forensic evidence to substantiate the offence of penetrative sexual assault. It also referred to the testimony of victim S, in particular, her cross-examination in which, she had completely exonerated the accused while deposing that he had not committed any such sexual act and rather he had simply slapped her on the date of incident and out of anger, she had lodged a complaint against him. Her mother and grandmother also did not support the prosecution case. It was in the backdrop of such deposition of material witnesses that the accused has been acquitted.
12. This Court is conscious of the fact that scope of interference in an appeal against the acquittal is a constricted one. Reference be made to Jagdish God v. State of Chhattisgarh and Others: 2025 SCC OnLine SC 744, Bhupatbhai Bachubhai Chavda and Another v. State of Gujarat: 2024 SCC OnLine SC 523 and Ballu Alias Balram Alias Balmukund and Another v. State of Madhya Pradesh: (2024) 12 SCC 202. Interference with order of acquittal is warranted where it is
