Sole Testimony of Prosecutrix Must Be of 'Sterling Quality' for Conviction; Delhi HC Upholds Acquittal Citing Material Contradictions - 2025-09-19

Delhi High Court Upholds Acquittal in POCSO Case, Citing 'Material Contradictions' in Victim's Testimony

New Delhi – The Delhi High Court has upheld the acquittal of a man accused of sexually assaulting a minor, ruling that the victim’s testimony, riddled with “material contradictions and improvements,” was not of the “sterling quality” required for a conviction. Justice Neena Bansal Krishna, dismissing the State's appeal, affirmed the trial court's finding that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt.

The bench emphasized that while the sole testimony of a prosecutrix can be the basis for conviction in sexual assault cases, it must be credible and reliable. The judgment highlighted significant inconsistencies across the victim's various statements, which undermined the prosecution's narrative.

---

Background of the Case

The case originates from an FIR registered on March 6, 2013, where a 14-year-old girl alleged that the respondent, Jawahar Singh, forcibly entered her house, sexually assaulted her by touching her breast and private parts, and threatened to kill her and her family if she disclosed the incident. Singh was charged under Sections 451 (House-trespass), 506 (Criminal Intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), and Section 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act.

On January 25, 2020, the Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) acquitted Singh, concluding that the victim’s statements to the police, before a magistrate, and during the court trial contained significant contradictions, making them unreliable. The State of NCT of Delhi subsequently challenged this acquittal in the High Court.

Arguments Before the High Court

The State's Appeal: The prosecution argued that the trial court had given "undue weightage" to minor variations in the victim's statements. It contended that in cases of sexual assault, conviction can be based solely on the victim's testimony and that corroboration is not essential. The State cited the Supreme Court's decision in Narender Kumar vs. State (NCT of Delhi) , urging the court to consider the broader probabilities and not be swayed by minor discrepancies, especially given the victim's young age.

The Respondent's Defence: The defence maintained that Jawahar Singh was falsely implicated due to a property dispute. The respondent’s counsel pointed to several "material contradictions" in the prosecution's case:

- The initial police report (DD entry) mentioned "some boys teasing a girl," which was completely different from the victim's final allegation of sexual assault by a single known person.

- The victim’s three statements—the initial complaint, the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., and her court testimony—varied on crucial details of the alleged assault. For instance, the mention of touching private parts was absent in her statement before the magistrate.

- A key witness (PW6), Smt. Sugarshree, testified that the victim told her she had hit the accused with a wooden stool. This act was never mentioned by the victim herself, and the accused's medical report showed no injuries.

- The victim’s claim that the accused was intoxicated was not supported by his medical examination.

High Court's Detailed Analysis and Ruling

Justice Neena Bansal Krishna conducted a meticulous review of the evidence and upheld the trial court's reasoning. The High Court found the inconsistencies were not minor but went to the core of the incident.

"While it is no doubt true that the sole testimony of the Prosecutrix can be the basis for conviction, but the testimony of the Prosecutrix must be of sterling quality," the judgment stated.

The Court highlighted several key discrepancies:

1. Varying Narratives of the Assault: The victim’s description of the assault changed across her statements. A specific phrase allegedly used by the accused ("de do mere ko") and an assertion that he tried to do "galat kaam" (a wrong act) appeared only in one statement but were absent in others.
2. Contradiction with Witness Testimony: The testimony of PW6, Smt. Sugarshree, who was the first person the victim allegedly spoke to, contradicted the victim's own account. PW6’s claim that the victim hit the accused with a stool was a significant detail absent from the victim's narrative.
3. Initial Police Information: The court noted the stark difference between the initial PCR call about "eve teasing by some boys" and the subsequent allegation of sexual assault by a lone neighbour, which "raises a doubt about the alleged occurrence."
4. Lack of Corroborative Evidence: The absence of injuries on the accused (despite the alleged stool attack) and the lack of medical evidence supporting intoxication further weakened the prosecution's case.

The High Court also independently analyzed the charges under Sections 451 and 506 IPC and found them unproven. It reasoned that since the victim herself opened the door, the element of "house-trespass" under Section 451 IPC was not established. Similarly, the charge of criminal intimidation under Section 506 IPC failed as the prosecution could not prove the alleged threats were made with an "intention to cause alarm," especially given the victim’s claim that she had already pushed the accused and fled the room.

Conclusion and Implications

Concluding that the trial court had correctly appreciated the evidence and given the benefit of the doubt to the accused, the High Court dismissed the State's appeal.

The judgment serves as a critical reminder that while the law rightly places significant weight on a victim's testimony in sexual offence cases, the fundamental principle of "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" remains paramount. It underscores that an acquittal should not be overturned lightly unless the trial court's findings are perverse or clearly erroneous.