Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Del) 7731
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Manoj Kumar Ohri, J
BANIYA@RAJU – Appellant
Versus
STATE (GNCT OF DELHI) – Respondent
CRL.A. 539/2022
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Archit Upadhyay
For the Respondents: Mr. Pradeep Gahalot, APP for State
The court upheld the conviction for sexual assault based on the reliable testimony of a child victim, affirming that corroboration is not a strict prerequisite for conviction.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 366, 376 - Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 - Sections 5(k), 6 - Conviction under POCSO for sexual assault - The court upheld conviction based on credible testimony of the child victim and her sister, affirming the application of Section 29 of POCSO regarding presumption of guilt unless disproven - The appellant's claims of false implication and inconsistencies were dismissed as insufficient to counter the prosecution's case. (Paras 19, 20)
(B) Evidence - Standards for child witnesses - The testimony of child witnesses must be carefully scrutinized and can be relied upon if they exhibit understanding and consistency, but corroboration is not strictly required unless there are material discrepancies. (Paras 15, 16)
Facts of the case:
The appellant was charged with abducting and sexually assaulting a 11-year-old girl. The victim’s sister witnessed the act and reported the crime, leading to the appellant's arrest and conviction.
Findings of Court:
The court found the testimony of the child victim clear and credible, despite her mental disabilities, and corroborated by her sister’s consistent statements.
Issues: Primary issues included evaluating the credibility of the child victim's testimony amid claims of false implication and inconsistencies regarding her age.
Ratio Decidendi: The court affirmed that the testimony of a child victim could suffice for conviction if reliable, despite the absence of physical corroboration and the principle that corroboration is prudent but not obligatory.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. the appeal against conviction was dismissed. (Para 1 , 20) |
| 2. facts of assault involving the child victim and her rescue. (Para 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 3. arguments regarding credibility and inconsistencies in witness statements. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 4. evaluation of child testimony standards. (Para 15 , 16) |
| 5. affirmation of conviction based on victim's testimony. (Para 19) |
1. The present appeal has been instituted against the judgement of conviction dated 16.03.2022 and order on sentence dated 05.05.2022 passed by Additional Sessions Judge-06 (POCSO Court, South-East) Saket, New Delhi in the case arising out of FIR No. 516/2016 registered under Sections 376 IPC and Sections 4/6/8 of the POCSO Act at P.S. Jaitpur, Delhi.
Vide the impugned judgement, the appellant was convicted for the offence under Section 366 /376 (2) (i) & (l) of IPC and under section 5 (k) & (m)/ 6 of POCSO Act.
Vide the order on sentence, the appellant was directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 12 years for the offence punishable under Section 376 IPC , along with payment of a fine of Rs.1,000, in default of payment, he was directed to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 1 month. He was further directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 12 years for the offence punishable under Section 6 of POCSO, along with payment of a fine of Rs.1,000, in default of payment, he was directed to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 1 month. Additionally, he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 5 years for the offence punishable under Section 366 IPC , with a fine of Rs.1,000, in default thereof, to undergo simple imprisonment for 1 month. All the sentences were to run concurrently. The benefit of Section 428 Cr.P.C. was also to be given to the appellant.
2. The facts, in a nutshell as narrated in the complaint to the SHO, P.S. Jaitpur, Delhi by the victim’s younger sister ‘P’ (PW5), are that on 09.09.2016, around 6:00 PM, the victim ‘K’ had left her home statedly to look for her father. When she did not return for some time, ‘P’ sister (PW5), who was in seventh grade, became concerned and began searching for her. While looking around, she came upon a crowd gathered outside the appellant’s house. Upon inquiring about her sister, she was told that the victim was locked inside the appellant’s residence. ‘P’ looked through the window and witnessed the appellant committing ‘galat kaam’ with her sister whose clothes had been removed. She alongwith the other neighbours forced the door open and took the child victim and the appellant out of the room. The child victim narrated to her that when she had gone outside to search her father, the appellant took her from the street to his room, removed her clothes and committed ‘galat kaam’ with her. The appellant attempted to escape but was apprehended and beaten by the public. PW5 then helped her sister put on clothes. The FIR was lodged in the early hours of 10.09.2016 around 2.50 A.M.
3. The statement of child victim was recorded under Section 161 CrPC on 10.09.2016 wherein she stated that on 09.09.2016 her mother was not at home and her father had gone somewhere. When she went outside to look for him, she found the appellant standing in a gali around 6.00 pm. She asked him if her dad was at his home, to which the appellant said yes and took her there, holding her hand. He removed her and his clothes, laid down on her, pressed her chest and committed rape on her. He also put his penis in her mouth and put his spit on her vagina. Though she resisted, he did not let go. Then her sister ‘P’ got the door opened with help of public, whereafter the appellant was apprehended.
The statement of the child victim under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. was recorded on 16.09.2016 which was on similar lines. She deposed as to the appellant taking her to his house, removing both their clothes, kissing her, laying down on top of her, pressing her chest, putting his spit on her vagin
