Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(Del) 1273

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Prathiba M. Singh, Madhu Jain, JJ
DRY – Appellant
Versus
STATE NCT OF DELHI – Respondent
CRL.A. 1494/2025 & CRL.M.(BAIL) 2186/2025

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr Gautam Khazanchi, Ms. Pooja Deepak
For the Respondents: Mr. Ritesh Kumar Bahri, APP with Ms. Vibha & Mr. Lalit Luthra

The presumption of guilt under the POCSO Act applies where conclusive DNA evidence establishes the accused's wrongdoing, despite contradictory testimonies from the victim and her mother, solidifying the conviction.

Headnote:(A) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Section 415 and Section 528 - Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 - Section 6 - Rape and aggravated penetrative sexual assault - Accused convicted for repeated sexual assault on his own minor daughter, supported by DNA evidence - Trial Court's conviction upheld as compelling evidence established culpability despite the victim's ambivalence and mother's hostility. (Paras 29, 34, 36)

(B) Conviction under POCSO Act - The jurisprudence under the POCSO Act creates a statutory presumption of guilt, which remains unrebutted in this case. DNA profiling confirms paternity of the child, solidifying the prosecution’s case despite challenges related to witness reliability. (Paras 30, 32)

(C) Evidentiary Standards - Testimony of a minor victim, while potentially conflicted, does not negate the weight of corroborative forensic evidence, underscoring the importance of protecting child victims within legal frameworks. (Paras 25, 34)

Facts of the case:
The accused was charged with raping his daughter on multiple occasions, resulting in her pregnancy. Evidence included DNA results linking him conclusively to the offence. The victim initially supported the prosecution but later retracted under familial pressure. (Paras 6-8, 28)

Findings of Court:
The Trial Court concluded that the prosecution proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt, leading to the accused's conviction for rape and intimidation. (Paras 59-61)

Issues: Were the evidentiary submissions sufficient to overcome the victim's contradictory statements and her mother’s testimony? Did the presumption of guilt under the POCSO Act apply in this case? (Paras 10, 34, 36)

Ratio Decidendi: The court affirmed that the POCSO Act allows for a presumption of guilt based on foundational facts, and the DNA evidence was pivotal in securing the conviction despite any retracing of statements by the victim or her family. (Paras 30, 34)

Result: Appeal dismissed, conviction upheld.

Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)

1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

CRL.M.A. 31981/2025

2. This application seeks permission to file lengthy synopsis and list of dates of more than five pages.

3. For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed. The lengthy synopsis and list of dates are taken on record.

4. The application is disposed of.

CRL.A. 1494/2025& CRL.M.(BAIL) 2186/2025

5. The present appeal has been filed by the Appellant under Section 415 read with Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter, ‘BNSS’) challenging the impugned judgment dated 30^th July, 2025 (hereinafter, ‘impugned order’) and order of sentence dated 29^th August, 2025 passed by the ld. Additional Sessions Judge-01 (POCSO/Children’s Court): North District, Rohini Court, Delhi in Sessions Case No. 435/2021.

Facts

6. The present case arises out of FIR No. 659/2021 PS Jahangir Puri dated 25th July, 2021 under Sections 376/506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter, ‘IPC’) and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter, ‘POCSO Act’).

7. The Appellant is accused of the offences of rape, criminal intimidation and aggravated penetrative sexual assault against the victim who happens to be his daughter and a minor at the time of the incident. The Police Station Jahangir Puri had received information on 25^th July, 2021 that the victim had been raped two to three times by her own father and the said diary entry was made by ASI Subhash and was marked for investigation to Sub-Inspector Anita.

8. On 25^th July, 2021, the victim along with her mother had visited the Police Station Jahangir Puri and the complaint was recorded by Sub-Inspector Anita in which she had stated that she was a student in Class 6^th. It was further stated by the victim that her father had forcibly established physical relations with her when she was sleeping in her house and that she was in fact three months’ pregnant on the date when the complaint was registered.

9. Thereafter, the Appellant was taken to RML Hospital by the Delhi Police for a potency test and blood sample collection. The blood was collected and was handed over to the constable for proper testing.

10. On 31^st July, 2021, the termination of pregnancy of the victim was conducted at the Babu Jagjivan Ram Memorial Hospital and the samples of the foetus were also collected and handed over to the concerned investigating officer. The samples had been sent for testing to the Forensic Science Laboratory (hereinafter, ‘FSL’) in Rohini and the report of the said samples is also on record.

11. Chargesheet was then filed against the Appellant and charges were framed vide order dated 11th March, 2022 under Sections 376(2)/ 376(3)/ 506(II) IPC and Section 6 of POCSO Act to which the Appellant pleaded not guilty.

Proceedings before the Trial Court

12. During the course of trial, 10 witnesses including the Prosecutrix and her mother were examined by the prosecution. The relevant testimonies are of the following witnesses:

a) PW-1: Prosecutrix

b) PW-2: Her mother

c) PW-3: Ct. Nishant

d) PW-7: Dr. Monika Chakravarty, Senior Scientific Officer (Biology) at the FSL, Rohini, Delhi.

13. All the remaining witnesses, i.e. PW-4 to PW-6 and PW-8 to PW-10 were Police officials. In the testimony of the Prosecutrix, although she attempts to support her father at certain places, it clearly emerges that the father had established a physical relationship with the daughter, and the said extracts from the statement of the Prosecutrix are set out below:

“Q. Agar papa jail se aane ke baad dobara maarenge toh kya karoge?

A. Nahi marenge. Mummy ne mujhe kaha hai ki wo hamare saath nahi rahenge.

Mai papa ko jail se isliye chudwana chahti hun kyunki ghar ka kharcha nahi chal raha hai.

Yeh kehna sahi hai ki maine police ko diye bayan mei yeh baat batayi thi ki March, 2020 mei mere papa ne mere saath jabardasti sharirik sambandh banaye thei aur mujhe dhamki di thi ki maine agar kisi ko yeh baat b

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(Del) 1273

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHIPrathiba M. Singh, Madhu Jain, JJDRY – AppellantVersusSTATE NCT OF DELHI – RespondentCRL.A. 1494/2025 & CRL.M.(BAIL) 2186/2025

The presumption of guilt under the POCSO Act applies where conclusive DNA evidence establishes the accused's wrongdoing, despite contradictory testimonies from the victim and her mother, solidifying the conviction.

Cases Referred (1)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Prathiba M. Singh, Madhu Jain, JJ
DRY – Appellant
Versus
STATE NCT OF DELHI – Respondent
CRL.A. 1494/2025 & CRL.M.(BAIL) 2186/2025