Minor Discrepancies Relating To Delay In FIR Do Not Cast Doubt Over Prosecution Case: Delhi High Court Upholds Conviction In 4-Yr-Old Girl’s Sexual Assault Case

The Delhi High Court has upheld the conviction of a 45-year-old man who was accused of sexually assaulting a four-year-old minor girl in the year 2015.

The accused filed an Appeal before the Court, challenging the Judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ), by which he was convicted for the offences under Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act) and Sections 323 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).

A Single Bench of Justice Amit Mahajan observed, “Minor discrepancies in relation to delay in lodging the FIR are not such that cast a doubt over the prosecution’s case. Even otherwise, as rightly noted by the learned ASJ, the delay has been properly explained not only in the initial complaint made by the complainant but also in her testimony, that on 05.08.2015, when she narrated the incidents of the day to her husband, he started quarrelling with her instead of showing support and asked her to remain silent about the incident as it would attract social stigma upon their family. She has clarified in her testimony that she did not make a complaint immediately as she was scared of the social stigma that would be brought on her family having three daughters.”

The Bench said that although the Court has to be sensitive while considering the statement of a child victim in such cases, the reality of the impressionable nature of children and the possibility of them being tutored cannot be ignored.

Advocate Jahanvi Worah appeared for the Appellant/Accused while APP Ajay Vikram Singh and Amicus Curiae Deepika Dahiya appeared for the Respondent/State.

Case Background

An FIR was registered based on a Complaint given by the mother of the four-year-old minor victim (Complainant), alleging that in August 2015, her daughter had gone to the nearby Khatta Wala Park, whereafter she returned home crying. On being asked, the victim stated that the Appellant-accused had taken her to the other park and bitten her when she started crying. The Complainant noticed that she had bite marks on both her cheeks and near her chest area. The accused was of 45 years of age at that time and used to ply a rickshaw. He was residing with his brother on rent in a room on the first floor of the victim’s house. It was alleged that even on an earlier occasion, the victim had informed the Complainant that the accused had taken her to his room and locked the same. Allegedly, he removed the victim’s clothes and his lower inner wear, inserted his penis in the victim’s vagina, and thereafter, he excreted on her.

It was further alleged that when the Complainant informed her husband regarding this incident, an altercation broke between them regarding the carelessness on the part of the Complainant. In this regard, a Complaint was made against her husband, which led to the registration of FIR. Allegedly, when the accused came to know that the Complainant’s husband has been arrested, he vacated the premises without prior notice and fled from there. As per the Complainant, she was unable to make a complaint earlier due to social stigma being the mother of three girls, and prayed for strict action against the accused. Consequently, the accused was arrested and then was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of 12 years along with a fine of Rs. 10,000/-. This was under challenge before the High Court by the accused.

Reasoning

The High Court in the above context of the case, remarked, “In the case at hand, as rightly noted by the learned ASJ, the testimony of the victim’s mother is sincere and also substantially corroborates and supports the version of the victim as well as the medical evidence. Apart from what was told to her by the victim, the same alone sufficiently suggests that the appellant sexually assaulted the victim and brutally bit her on both her cheeks and her stomach. A perusal of the MLC and the photographs of the victim that have been placed on record makes it apparent that the defence taken by the appellant does not justify the case at hand.”

The Court added that apart from the bare averments of the accused that there was some monetary dispute between him and the Complainant, there is nothing to support his defence that he has been falsely implicated due to prior animosity, leaving aside the testimony of witness, who is the real brother of the accused and is therefore an interested witness.

“Thus, the appellant has failed to raise any credible defence. … the testimony of the victim is reliable and could not be eroded in cross-examination and is duly corroborated by the evidence. The victim has stuck by her version throughout the trial, mere apprehension of the appellant that the victim has been tutored is not enough to disregard the victim’s evidence. The said factor has to be established by showing motive for false implication, which the defence has failed to show in the present case”, it further noted.

Moreover, the Court observed that the testimony of the witness inspires confidence and the accused has been unable to show that the version of the victim is tutored.

“In such circumstances, the foundational facts stand proved by the prosecution through the evidence of the victim and her parents, and the appellant has not been able to create any doubt to rebut the presumption under Section 29 of the POCSO Act”, it concluded.

Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the Appeal and upheld the conviction.

Cause Title- Pawan Kumar Paswan v. State (NCT of Delhi) [Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:5218]

Click here to read/download the Judgment