1. Aggravated penetrative sexual assault of a child — Conviction under Section 376AB IPC and POCSO Act — Appeal against conviction. (Para 3 , 4 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Online)(Del) 17124
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Prathiba M. Singh, Vikas Mahajan, JJ
P (IDENTITY REDACTED) – Appellant
Versus
State (NCT of Delhi) – Respondent
CRL.A. 1742/2025 | CRL.M.(BAIL) 2557/2025
Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Shivek Trehan, Akash Chandna, Manika Pandey
For the Respondents: Ritesh Kumar Bahri, Lalit Luthra, Randeep Kumar, Arushi Anthwal
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Shivek Trehan, Akash Chandna, Manika Pandey
For the Respondents: Ritesh Kumar Bahri, Lalit Luthra, Randeep Kumar, Arushi Anthwal
The testimony of a child witness can sustain a conviction without corroboration if reliable; however, material contradictions in identification and contradictory forensic evidence (DNA) create reasonable doubt, necessitating acquittal.
Headnote:(A) Evidence of Child Witness - Probative Value - Testimony of a child victim in sexual offence cases can be the sole basis for conviction if it is reliable, trustworthy, and not tutored. (Para 28, 29)
(B) Identification of Accused - Contradictions in Testimony - Where a child witness provides contradictory statements regarding the visibility of the perpetrator's face and such version is not supported by site plans, the testimony lacks coherence and requires corroboration. (Para 30-33)
(C) Corroborative Evidence - Forensic Evidence - Non-matching DNA profiles in FSL reports and doubtful recoveries from open spaces undermine the prosecution's narrative and create reasonable doubt. (Para 38, 40)
Issues: Whether the sole testimony of the child victim, riddled with contradictions and unsupported by forensic evidence, is sufficient to sustain the conviction of the appellant.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- crime and sentencing
- practice and procedure
Table of Contents
2. Appellant challenged conviction based on unreliable child testimony, lack of corroboration, and false implication from a confession in another case. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 )
3. Child victim's testimony on identification was contradictory; no corroborating evidence; FSL report did not match the appellant; recovery was doubtful. (Para 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 )
4. A child witness's sole testimony, if contradictory and lacking corroboration, is insufficient for conviction. (Para 28 , 29 , 34 )
5. Appeal allowed — Conviction and sentence set aside — Appellant acquitted and directed to be released. (Para 42 , 43 )
6. Can a conviction be based solely on the testimony of a child witness?
Yes, if the testimony is reliable, trustworthy, and inspires confidence, corroboration is not required. If the evidence is contradictory or tutored, corroboration is necessary. (Para 28 , 29 )
7. What is the evidentiary value of a confession made to the police while in custody in another case?
Such a confession, used to implicate an accused already in custody, can raise suspicion of false implication and undermine the prosecution's case. (Para 36 , 37 )
8. What is the probative value of an inconclusive FSL report in a sexual offence case?
An inconclusive or negative FSL report is not fatal to the prosecution if other incriminating evidence, such as reliable victim testimony, exists. It can undermine the case if other evidence is weak. (Para 38 , 39 )
9. Is the recovery of an ordinary object from an open place without independent witnesses sufficient corroborative evidence?
Recovery of a common item from an open place, without independent witnesses, is considered doubtful and insufficient to connect the accused to the crime. (Para 40 )
JUDGMENT
Vikas Mahajan, J.
1. The present Appeal has been preferred by the Appellant against the impugned judgment dated 4th September, 2025, whereby the Appellant was convicted under Section 376AB /341/323 Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’) and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 ( hereinafter referred to as ‘POCSO Act’).
2. Vide separate Order on Sentence dated 24th September, 2025 the Appellant was sentenced in the following terms:
“Keeping in view the above facts of the case, the convict Prakash, S/o, Sh. Gabbu @ Gupta Nishad is sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life, which shall mean imprisonment for the remainder of his natural life and fine of Rs.5,000/-, and in default of payment of fine, simple imprisonment for two months for offence punishable u/s 376AB IPC. Convict is also sentenced to rigorous imprisonment of six months and fine of Rs.500/-, and in default of payment of fine, simple imprisonment for 15 days for offence punishable u/s 323 IPC. Convict is further sentenced to simple imprisonment of 15 days and fine of Rs.100/-, and in default of payment of fine, simple imprisonment for seven days for offence punishable u/s 341 IPC. Benefit of Section 428 Cr. P.C. (Section 468 BNSS), qua any period spent by the convict in judicial custody, be given to the convict. Fine not paid.”
3. The case of the prosecution is that on 22nd August, 2018, at about 8.30 PM, near public toilet Hoti Camp, Rangpuri Pahari, New Delhi when the victim child aged about 10 years had gone to urinate, the Appellant threw her down in a pit and committed aggravated penetrative sexual assault upon her. The Appellant also caused bite marks on her chest and cheeks and also pressed neck of the victim.
4. On the basis of the said allegations, an FIR no. 440/2018 was registered at Police Station-Vasant Kunj (South) for the offences under Section 376 IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act on 23rd August, 2018.
5. As borne out from the charge sheet, IO/SI Saroj received an information vide DD No. 14A dated 24th August, 2018 to the effect that at 2 AM the Appellant had been arrested in another case, FIR No. 441/2018, registered at PS-Vasant Kunj (South), under Sections 363/365 IPC. At the time of his arrest, he confessed that on 22nd August, 2018, near the public toilet at Hoti Camp, Rangpuri Pahari, New Delhi he had committed sexual assault on a girl aged about 10-11 years in a pit near the bushes.
6. Thereafter, the Appellant was investigated in the present case on 24th August, 2018, during which a further disclosure statement was recorded. Upon completion of investigation, a chargesheet was filed against the Appellant.
7. On the basis of the chargesheet and material on record, the Ld. Trial Court vide order dated 16th April, 2019, framed the charges against the Appellant for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 341/363/365/366/376AB/323 IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
8. Prosecution examined six witnesses including the victim.
9. On the basis of evidence on record, Ld. Trial Court held that the offence of kidnapping had not been proved. However, the Appellant was convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 341/376AB/323 IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act.
10. The Trial Court convicted the Appellant recording that the victim has categorically stated the manner in which the offence was committed against her and had also identified the Appellant as the person who committed the aggravated penetrative sexual assault. The reasons recorded by the Ld. Trial Court are as under:
“25. Victim when examined as PW-1 has categorically stated that when she went to urinate, the accused pushed her in the khai and no only bitten on her cheeks and chest but also put his male organ in her female organ and committed the aggravated penetrative sexual assault. Victim has identified her wearing clothes when produced before the Court
