2026 Supreme(Online)(Del) 113

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Neena Bansal Krishna, J
Dharmendra Kumar – Appellant
Versus
State Govt. of NCT of Delhi – Respondent
CRL.A. 51/2025|CRL.M.A. 1185/2025|CRL.M.(BAIL) 96/2025

A conviction for sexual assault against a minor can be based on the sole, consistent testimony of the victim. However, while minor delays or lack of physical injury do not necessarily invalidate such evidence, the court cannot convict an accused for offences where no formal charges were framed.

Headnote:(A) Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 - Section 10 - Indian Penal Code - Sections 354, 354A and 354B - Sexual assault on minor - Conviction based on sole testimony of child witness - Whether delay in lodging complaint and absence of medical corroboration is fatal to prosecution case - Held, consistent child witness testimony warrants conviction provided it is reliable and free from tutoring - Delay in reporting sexual abuse is understandable in social context - Conviction under offences not originally charged is unsustainable. (Paras 45, 47, 56)

(B) Evidence of Child Witness - Admissibility - Competency and tutoring - Court must evaluate child's capacity to depose and ensure absence of external influence - Minimal variations in memory due to age-appropriate vocabulary limits do not render testimonial evidence invalid. (Paras 50, 51)

(C) Procedure - Charge framing requirements - Prosecution must ensure charges are framed for specific penal offences to warrant lawful conviction - Conviction cannot be sustained for offences where no formal charges were leveled against the accused. (Paras 66, 67)

Facts of the case:
Incident of sexual molestation against a minor occurred at a residence. The prosecution relied primarily on the ocular testimony of the minor victim and her parent. The complaint was registered after a delay of two days. The trial court convicted the accused under multiple penal provisions, though specific charges were not framed for all investigated offences. The accused appealed, challenging the credibility of the child witness and the procedural irregularities.

Findings of Court:
The testimony of the young child victim was found to be consistent, reliable, and corroborated by the complaint. The delay in reporting was explained by social stigma and the need to await family support. The absence of medical evidence of physical injury does not automatically negate the charge of sexual assault in non-penetrative instances. However, the conviction for offences where no formal charges were framed was found to be legally flawed.

Issues: The main issues were the reliability and competency of the child witness, the impact of the delay in registering the complaint, the necessity of medical corroboration for non-penetrative sexual assault, and the propriety of convicting for uncharged offences.

Ratio Decidendi: Conviction for offences against a minor can be sustained solely on the reliable testimony of the victim if it is consistent and lacks evidence of tutoring. Minor inconsistencies or absence of medical injury in non-penetrative cases do not invalidate the prosecution's case. However, the principle of procedural fairness mandates that an accused cannot be convicted for an offence for which no formal charge was framed.

Result: Appeal allowed in part; conviction and sentence under the special legislative enactment upheld, conviction for general penal offences set aside.