Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(Del) 61

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Manoj Kumar Ohri, J
Bajrang Pal – Appellant
Versus
State (NCT of Delhi) – Respondent
CRL.A. 394/2023

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Shannu Baghel, Ganpat Ram, Aakash, Saksham Kumar, Disha Gupta, Shubham
For the Respondents: Shubhi Gupta, Ramesh Kumar, B. Venkatraman

Discrepancies in a child victim's testimony regarding timing and age due to significant time lapses are natural and do not negate consistency on material facts. Once foundational facts are established, the statutory presumption of guilt operates against the accused, shifting the burden of proof to the defense.

Headnote:(A) Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 - Sections 10 and 29 - Sexual assault of minor - Discrepancies in victim's testimony regarding timing and age, occurring years after incident, are natural and do not nullify testimony if core facts remain consistent - Minor variations in deposition are expected after significant time lapse - Once foundational facts are established, statutory presumption of guilt applies against the accused, and burden shifts to rebut such presumption. (Paras 12, 13, 16)

(B) Evidence - Testimony of child victim - Reliability and corroboration - Testimony of a child witness in sexual assault cases does not strictly necessitate corroboration if reliable, consistent, and lacking evidence of tutoring - Appreciation of testimony must focus on consistency of material particulars and demeanour of the witness. (Para 15)

Facts of the case:
The appellant was convicted for the sexual assault of a minor girl. The prosecution alleged that the victim was lured into the appellant's room and molested, discovered by the victim’s mother. The defense appealed, arguing the victim's age was inconsistent with school records, and highlight conflicts regarding the timing of the incident and the sequence of events between the child and her mother, claiming false implication due to previous residential disputes.

Findings of Court:
The court observed that the victim's age discrepancy was immaterial as she clearly fell within the definition of a child under the relevant law. Minor contradictions in the deposition, stemming from the five-and-a-half-year delay, were deemed natural and did not affect the core consistency of the testimony. The corroborative evidence established foundational facts, triggering the statutory presumption of guilt which the defense failed to rebut.

Issues: Whether inconsistencies regarding the timing and age of the victim render the testimony unreliable; whether child testimony after a significant delay requires independent corroboration; and whether the statutory presumption is applicable upon establishment of foundational facts.

Ratio Decidendi: When a child victim's testimony is cogent and consistent on material facts, minor discrepancies regarding timing or age are natural and do not invalidate the account. When foundational facts are proven, the statutory presumption of guilt operates, and the defense must present credible evidence to rebut it, which was not achieved in this instance.

Result: Appeal dismissed; judgment of conviction and order of sentence upheld.

Table of Content
1. overview of conviction, facts of the case, and recorded evidence. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. apposing contentions regarding witness credibility and defense motives. (Para 4 , 5 , 8)
3. detailed testimonies of child victim and complainant. (Para 6 , 7)
4. court evaluation of discrepancies and defense truthfulness. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14)
5. applicability of section 29 pocso and child witness reliability. (Para 15 , 16)
6. final outcome, dismissal of appeal, and procedural directions. (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20)

JUDGMENT

1. The present appeal has been preferred by the appellant seeking setting aside of the judgment of conviction dated 31.05.2022 and the order on sentence dated 10.06.2022, whereby the appellant was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 10 POCSO and sentenced to undergo RI for a period of 5 years along with payment of fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default whereof he would undergo SI for 1 year. The fine amount was directed to be released to the prosecutrix as compensation, under Section 357 Cr.P.C. The benefit under Section 428 Cr.P.C. was extended to the appellant.

2. Briefly put, the case of the prosecution is that on 05.01.2014 at about 7:00 p.m., while the complainant ‘B’ was present in her room, the appellant, who was residing as a tenant in the same building, called the complainant’s 6-year-old daughter, ‘BK’, to his room on the pretext of giving her snacks. After some time, when her daughter did not return despite being called, the complainant went outside to search for her. While passing by the room of the appellant, she heard her daughter screaming, upon which she entered the room and found her lying on the knee of the appellant, who was touching her thigh and asking her not to scream as he would do (the act) slowly. The complainant freed her daughter from the appellant’s clutches and when she objected to the conduct of the appellant, he abused her. The complainant made a call to the police at 100 number. On receipt of information vide DD No. 32A, SI Annu reached the place of occurrence along with other police officials and recorded the complainant’s statement. The subject FIR was consequently registered, the appellant was arrested, and the child victim’s statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded. Upon completion of investigation, the chargesheet was filed. The Trial Court framed a charge under Section 10 POCSO against the appellant, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

3. The prosecution examined a total of 7 witnesses in support of its case. The most material witnesses are the child victim herself (PW-3) and her mother, i.e., the complainant (PW-4). PW-2 is an official from the child victim’s school who proved a copy of the school’s Admission and Withdrawal Register, as well as a certificate issued by the Principal of the said school, to establish the child victim’s age. The I.O. of the case, SI Annu (PW-6), deposed as to having recorded the complainant’s statement (Ex. PW-4/A), preparing the rukka (Ex. PW-6/A) as well as the site plan (Ex. PW-6/B), and arresting the appellant as well as conducting his personal search. The remaining witnesses are police officials whose testimonies are largely formal in nature: HC Ram Bhagat (PW-1) recorded the information received from PCR vide DD No. 22-A and got the subject FIR registered after receipt of the rukka from the I.O. and making his endorsement thereupon. Ct. Krishan (PW-5) and ASI Phool Kumar (PW-7) reached the spot of the incident along with the I.O. and their testimonies are along similar lines as that of the I.O.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant, while assailing the judgment of conviction, has contended that there are inconsistencies in the versions of events stated by the child victim and her mother, i.e. the complainant. While the child victim has stated that the incident occurred around 6:00-6:30 PM, the mother of the child victim has stated that the incident occurred after 7:00 PM; and while the child v

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(Del) 61

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHIManoj Kumar Ohri, JBajrang Pal – AppellantVersusState (NCT of Delhi) – RespondentCRL.A. 394/2023

Cases Referred (1)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Manoj Kumar Ohri, J
Bajrang Pal – Appellant
Versus
State (NCT of Delhi) – Respondent
CRL.A. 394/2023