Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Del) 543

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
CHANDRASEKHARAN SUDHA, J.
Naveen - Appellant
Versus
The State of NCT of Delhi - Respondent
CRL.A. No. 877 of 2016
Decided On : 25-05-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Hari Shanker, Advocate with Mr. Pankaj Sharma.
For the Respondent:Mr. Utkarsh, APP for the State, Ms. Nishtha Jain, Advocate (Amicus Curiae) for Victim.

A conviction based on the sole testimony of a prosecutrix must be of sterling quality; material improvements or inconsistencies between earlier statements and trial testimony render evidence unreliable and entitle the accused to the benefit of doubt.

Headnote:(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Sections 232 and 313 - Procedural compliance - Non-compliance with procedural provisions during trial - Effect thereof - Held, non-compliance with procedural norms does not vitiate proceedings unless it results in serious and substantial prejudice to the accused. (Para 7)

(B) Evidence - Testimony of prosecutrix - Reliability - Conviction based on sole testimony - Requirement - Testimony must be of 'sterling quality' - Contradictory statements and material improvements between initial statements and deposition in court render testimony unreliable - Benefit of doubt must be extended to the accused where evidence is inconsistent. (Para 18)

Facts of the case:
The appellant was convicted for offenses relating to the abduction and sexual assault of a minor. The trial court relied upon the depositions of the victim in court to uphold the conviction. The appellant challenged this on grounds that the evidence was contradictory, as the victim had initially stated no sexual relations occurred, later claiming otherwise during trial as an improvement. It was further asserted that the initial report was filed under parental pressure.

Findings of Court:
The court observed that the testimony was inconsistent regarding material particulars of the incident. Specifically, the claim of physical relations was absent in the earlier recorded version and appeared only as an improvement during testimony. Without corroborative evidence or consistency, the court found the testimony unreliable for sustaining a conviction.

Issues: Whether the conviction could be sustained solely on the inconsistent testimony of the prosecutrix, and whether non-compliance with procedural norms during trial vitiated the proceedings.

Ratio Decidendi: For a conviction to be based on the sole testimony of a victim, such evidence must be of sterling quality. When the testimony suffers from material contradictions and improvements between earlier statements and court evidence, it fails to meet the necessary threshold, entitling the accused to the benefit of doubt.

Result: Appeal allowed; impugned judgment set aside; accused acquitted.

Table of Content
1. summary of procedural history and factual background of the case. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 8 , 9)
2. requirement of section 232 cr.p.c. for a fair trial. (Para 7)
3. distinction between consensual relationships and statutory rape involving minors. (Para 10 , 11)
4. evidentiary assessment of the victim's testimony and proof of age. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17)
5. requirement for consistent and credible testimony to sustain conviction. (Para 18)
6. final acquittal and discharge order. (Para 19 , 20)

JUDGMENT :

CHANDRASEKHARAN SUDHA, J.

1. In this appeal filed under Section 374 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the sole accused in SC No. 63/2014 on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge-I, East District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi, assails the judgment dated 06.08.2016 and order on sentence dated 09.08.2016 as per which he has been convicted and sentenced for the offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (the IPC) and Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences, 2012 (the PoCSO Act).

2. The prosecution case is that on 12.09.2013 at about 03.30 p.m., the accused kidnapped PW4, a minor aged about 16 years, from her residence, that is, House No. 7/396, Trilok Puri, Delhi and took her to a village in Bihar. It is further alleged that between 12.09.2013 and 22.09.2013, the accused raped PW4. Hence, as per the charge-sheet/final report, the accused was alleged to have committed the offences punishable under Sections 363, 366, 366A, 376 IPC and Section 4 of the PoCSO Act.

3. On the basis of Ext.PW2/A FIS/FIR of PW2, given on 13.09.2013, Crime no. 545/2013, Kalyanpuri Police Station, that is, Ext.PW1/A FIR was registered by PW1, Head Constable. PW7, Sub Inspector (SI) was entrusted with the investigation of the case. On completion of the investigation into the crime, the charge-sheet/final report was filed alleging the commission of the offences punishable under the aforementioned sections.

4. When the accused was produced before the trial court, all the copies of the prosecution records were furnished to him, as contemplated under Section 207 Cr.P.C. After hearing both sides, the trial court, vide order dated 25.04.2014, framed a Charge under Section 376, 363 IPC and Section 4 of the PoCSO Act, which was read over and explained to him, to which he pleaded not guilty.

5. On behalf of the prosecution, PWs. 1 to 10 were examined, and Exts. PW1/A-B, PW2/A-B, PW3/A-D, PW4/A, PW5/A-C, PW6/A-C, PW9/A-B, PA, P2, PA-1, PA-3 and Mark X were marked in support of the case.

6. After the close of the prosecution evidence, the accused was questioned under Section 313(1)(b) Cr.P.C. regarding the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the evidence of the prosecution. He denied all those circumstances and maintained his innocence. The accused submitted that he is deeply in love with PW4. However, PW2, the father of PW4, was annoyed with their relationship. Therefore, PW2 in collusion with the police officials, lodged a false case against him. He married PW4 on 23.05.2026 as per Hindu rites and customs.

7. After questioning the accused under Section 313(1)(b) Cr.P.C., compliance of Section 232 Cr.P.C. was mandatory. In the case on hand, no hearing as contemplated under Section 232 Cr.P.C. is seen done by the trial court. However, non-compliance of the said provision does not, ipso facto, vitiate the proceedings, unless omission to comply with the same is shown to have resulted in serious and substantial prejudice to the accused (See Moidu K. vs. State of Kerala , 2009 (3) KHC 89 : 2009 SCC OnLine Ker 2888). Here, the accused has no case that non-compliance of Section 232 Cr.P.C has caused any prejudice to him.

8. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced by the accused.

9. Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence on record, and after hearing both sides, the trial court, vide the impugned judgement dated 06.08.2016, found the accused

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Del) 543

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHICHANDRASEKHARAN SUDHA, J.Naveen - AppellantVersusThe State of NCT of Delhi - RespondentCRL.A. No. 877 of 2016Decided On : 25-05-2026

A conviction based on the sole testimony of a prosecutrix must be of sterling quality; material improvements or inconsistencies between earlier statements and trial testimony render evidence unreliable and entitle the accused to the benefit of doubt.

Cases Referred (1)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
CHANDRASEKHARAN SUDHA, J.
Naveen - Appellant
Versus
The State of NCT of Delhi - Respondent
CRL.A. No. 877 of 2016
Decided On : 25-05-2026