Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(Del) 6579

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Navin Chawla, Ravinder Dudeja, JJ
State – Appellant
Versus
Dilavar Singh – Respondent
CRL.A. 169/2022

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Aman Usman, Manvendra Yadav, Atiq Ur Rehman
For the Respondents: Rakhi Dubey, Arpita Srivastava

A conviction for sexual assault based on a witness's testimony requires unassailable reliability; contradictions invalidate this status. Age via ossification must utilize the upper range plus a two-year margin of error, ensuring the benefit of doubt favors the accused in accordance with established criminal jurisprudence.

Headnote:(A) Criminal Law - Sexual Offences - Appreciation of Evidence - Sterling Witness - The testimony of a single witness in a criminal case must be consistent, natural, and unassailable to justify conviction - Material contradictions in the victim's versions regarding the occurrence, prior acquaintance with the accused, and the sequence of events render the witness unreliable - An appellate court shall not interfere with an acquittal unless the findings are perverse, manifestly illegal, or unreasonable, as a double presumption of innocence exists in favour of the acquitted. (Paras 25, 26, 32-34)

(B) Age Determination - Ossification Test - Margin of Error - In the absence of primary documentary proof for age determination, the upper age limit specified in a bone age assessment report must be adopted - Furthermore, a two-year margin of error must be applied to this upper limit to grant the benefit of doubt to the accused in criminal proceedings. (Paras 35-41, 45)

Facts of the case:
The state appealed an acquittal regarding charges of abduction and sexual assault. The prosecution alleged the respondent forcibly took the victim from her home to his residence and committed sexual assault. The trial court acquitted the respondent, citing inconsistencies in the victim's testimony and a failure to establish that the victim was a minor. Medical examination placed the victim's age in the 16-18 year range.

Findings of Court:
The court observed that the victim’s testimony lacked the quality of a “sterling witness” due to material contradictions between her statements under different investigation phases and her court deposition. The physical evidence of injury was consistent with alternative theories of conflict, and the court found the prosecution failed to prove lack of consent beyond a reasonable doubt.

Issues: The central issues were whether the evidence sufficiently proved the sexual assault occurred against the victim's will, and the correct approach for determining the victim's age to establish whether she was a minor at the time of the incident.

Ratio Decidendi: Conviction on the sole testimony of a victim requires that the version remains intact and consistent throughout. Material contradictions regarding the victim's acquaintance with the accused and the methodology of the act preclude reliance on the sole testimony. Regarding age, the principle of benefit of doubt mandates that the upper estimate of an ossification report, inclusive of a two-year margin of error, be applied to determine age, preventing an adverse presumption against the accused.

Result: Appeal dismissed.

Table of Content
1. procedural history and factual background of the prosecution case. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5)
2. trial court's reasoning regarding age determination and absence of forced consent. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11)
3. contentions of parties regarding evidence quality and age determination methodologies. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16)
4. analysis of evidentiary contradictions in the victim's testimony. (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24)
5. standards for accepting a sole witness ('sterling witness') in rape cases. (Para 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31)
6. principles governing appellate review of trial court acquittal orders. (Para 32 , 33 , 34)
7. legal standard for age determination via ossification test and applying benefit of doubt. (Para 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45)
8. final order dismissing the appeal and upholding the acquittal. (Para 46 , 47 , 48 , 49)

J U D G M E N T

NAVIN CHAWLA, J.

1. This appeal has been filed challenging the judgment dated 28.11.2019 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (POCSO) West, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Trial Court’) in Sessions Case no. 219/2013 arising out of FIR no. 183/2013 under Sections 342/506/376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’) and Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as ‘POCSO Act’), registered at Police Station Paschim Vihar, Delhi, whereby the learned Trial Court acquitted the respondent of the Charges.

CASE OF THE PROSECUTION

2. It is the case of the prosecution that on the night of 26.06.2013 at about 1:30 am, the respondent, who lives in the neighbourhood of the victim, came to the house of the victim and knocked at the door, while her family members were asleep. The victim, believing the person at the door to be her father, opened the same, whereupon the respondent was present and he put his hand on victim’s mouth and took her to his house. It is alleged by the prosecution that under the threat to kill her, the respondent disrobed her and forcibly established physical relations with her. The victim then raised an alarm and ran towards her house in the gali outside, where she was met by her parents. She narrated the entire incident to them, whereafter police was informed and the present FIR was registered.

3. The victim was medically examined on the same day at 6:55 pm and her statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Cr.P.C.’) was also recorded on 27.06.2013.

4. Upon completion of the investigation, Charge-Sheet was filed against the respondent on 17.08.2013, and Charge under Sections 376/342/506 of the IPC and Section 4 of the POCSO Act was framed against the respondent vide order dated 07.10.2013 passed by the learned Trial Court, to which the respondent pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

5. The prosecution, in support of its case, examined nine witnesses, including the victim, her sister, her parents, the doctor who conducted her medical examination, and the Investigating Officer. The statement of the respondent under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. was also recorded by the learned Trial Court on 18.11.2019, in which he claimed innocence and stated that he has been falsely implicated in the case.

IMPUGNED ORDER:

6. The learned Trial Court, upon appreciation of evidence on record, held that the prosecution had failed to establish the age of the victim beyond a reasonable doubt. In the absence of any documentary proof, that is, the school or birth certificate issued by a competent authority, reliance was placed on an Ossification Test which was conducted on 08.07.2013 and which opined her age to be between the bracket of 16 to 18 years at the time of the incident. Extending the benefit of margin of error in favour of the respondent, the victim was treated as a major and consequently, the provisions of POCSO Act were held to be inapplicable.

7. The learned

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(Del) 6579

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHINavin Chawla, Ravinder Dudeja, JJState – AppellantVersusDilavar Singh – RespondentCRL.A. 169/2022

Cases Referred (6)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Navin Chawla, Ravinder Dudeja, JJ
State – Appellant
Versus
Dilavar Singh – Respondent
CRL.A. 169/2022