2026 Supreme(Del) 563

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, J.
Alok Yadav@ Aalok Yadev - Appellant
Versus
State of NCT of Delhi - Respondent
CRL.A. No. 576 of 2025 & CRL.M.(BAIL) No. 953 of 2025
Decided On : 26-05-2026

The testimony of a child witness, if consistent and credible, suffices for conviction in sexual assault cases. Delay in reporting, explained by trauma and fear, does not per se invalidate the prosecution case; furthermore, statutory presumptions in child protection laws necessitate rebuttal by the accused.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 376, 506, 34 and 376AB - Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 - Sections 6, 17, 21, 29 and 30 - Aggravated penetrative sexual assault on minor - Statutory presumption under Section 29 and 30 - Delay in registration of FIR - Credibility of child witness - Conviction of the appellant for committing rape on a girl below twelve years of age, facilitated by the mother - Evidence of a child witness, if inherently consistent and inspires confidence, is sufficient for conviction without independent corroboration - Delay in lodging FIR due to fear, social stigma and trauma in cases involving family members does not vitiate the prosecution case - Statutory presumptions under POCSO Act shift the burden upon the accused to rebut the same with cogent evidence. (Paras 12-15, 25, 29-31, 35, 38-39)

(B) Evidence - Child Witness - Credibility of - Minor inconsistencies in the testimony of a child regarding peripheral details do not dilute the core of the testimony or the substratum of the prosecution case - When the victim depicts a natural sequence of events and maintains consistency on material aspects of the assault, conviction is sustainable. (Paras 24, 33, 35)

Facts of the case:
The appellant was convicted for committing aggravated penetrative sexual assault upon a minor girl between the ages of 10 and 11 years over a period of time. The offences were facilitated by the mother of the victim. The FIR was registered significantly later than the alleged incidents, following the child's disclosure to her grandmother. The defense argued that the delay in registration, lack of medical evidence, and contradictions in testimony regarding the furniture and the sequence of disclosure rendered the prosecution case unreliable, further claiming that the prosecution was motivated by familial disputes.

Findings of Court:
The court observed that the testimony of the victim was consistent on all material particulars and was corroborated by the testimonies of the paternal grandparents and the father. The delay in reporting was adequately explained by the child's age, fear of the perpetrators (including her own parent), and the illness of the relative to whom she initially disclosed the trauma. The court upheld the conviction and the 25-year sentence, emphasizing the gravity of the breach of trust and the absence of any evidence from the accused to rebut the statutory presumptions.

Issues: Whether the conviction is sustainable given the delay in reporting, lack of medical corroboration, and alleged inconsistencies in the testimony of the child witness, and whether the statutory presumptions under the special legislation were correctly invoked.

Ratio Decidendi: In cases of sexual assault against children, especially involving family acquaintances, a delay in reporting is natural and does not discredit the prosecution. If the victim's testimony is of sterling quality and consistent on material aspects, it can form the sole basis of conviction. Once the foundational facts of the offence are established, the statutory presumption of guilt under the special enactment shifts the burden of proof to the accused, which must be discharged through cogent evidence, not mere denial.

Result: Appeal dismissed.