Victim’s Distress In Court On Seeing Accused Not Enough For Conviction: Delhi High Court Acquits POCSO Accused
|The Court flagged suspicions that accused was made a "scapegoat" under public outcry after mismatched DNA and investigative gaps expose prosecution's case.
The Delhi High Court has set aside the conviction and natural life sentence of a man accused of aggravated penetrative sexual assault under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012, ruling that a child victim’s visible distress or discomfort upon seeing the accused in court cannot form the sole foundation of a criminal conviction when substantive evidence fails to establish guilt.
The Court observed that the trial court erred in relying primarily on the victim’s courtroom reaction while overlooking grave flaws in the prosecution’s narrative, including a clear negative FSL report and the highly suspicious manner in which the accused was implicated via a custodial disclosure statement in a separate case, raising serious concerns that he was falsely implicated as a scapegoat.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Vikas Mahajan observed, "Merely because there is a Trial Court’s observation with regard to the victim becoming uncomfortable and perturbed when she was shown the appellant on the screen for identification, cannot be the basis of conviction, when the evidence and circumstances on the record leaves reasonable suspicion as regards the Appellant’s involvement in the alleged sexual assault upon the victim and raises substantial doubt regarding the integrity of the prosecution’s case".
“…we are of the opinion that though the victim has identified the accused on the screen when the Appellant was shown to her in the Court, it would not be safe to rely solely on her testimony for convicting the Appellant without further corroboration”, the Bench said.
Advocate Shivek Trehan appeared for the appellant and Ritesh Kumar Bahri, APP appeared for the respondent while Advocate Arushi Anthwal appeared for the victim.
According to the prosecution, on August 22, 2018, at around 8:30 PM near a public toilet in Rangpuri Pahari, New Delhi, a 10-year-old girl who had gone to urinate was thrown into a pit, blindfolded, and subjected to aggravated penetrative sexual assault. An FIR was subsequently registered under Section 376 IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act against an unknown person.
The police subsequently arrested the appellant on August 23, 2018, in connection with a separate matter. While in police custody, he allegedly made a disclosure statement confessing to the assault in the present case. Charges were framed under Sections 341/363/365/366/376AB/323 IPC and Section 6 POCSO Act.
On September 4, 2025, the Trial Court convicted the appellant under Sections 376AB/341/323 IPC and Section 6 POCSO Act, sentencing him to rigorous imprisonment for the remainder of his natural life.
Re-evaluating the evidence under the settled principles governing child witness testimony laid down in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Balveer Singh (2025) 8 SCC 545, the High Court noted material contradictions in the victim's testimony regarding visibility and identification. The victim admitted it was dark, gave conflicting answers on whether she could see the perpetrator's face, and claimed a light was on, a fact refuted by the site plans on record.
Furthermore, the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) report explicitly stated that the semen stains found on the victim's microslides did not match the blood sample of the appellant.
“Intriguingly, the name of the Appellant as perpetrator has surfaced only on the basis of his so-called confessional disclosure made by him while he was in the police custody in connection with another FIR No.441/2018. The incident happened on 22nd August, 2018… This factum brings the prosecution case under the cloud of suspicion giving rise to the doubt that under some sort of pressure of public outcry, the Appellant who was already available in the custody of the police as accused in connection with another FIR No. 441/2018, was made a scapegoat and falsely implicated in the present case”, the Bench said further.
Consequentially, the Court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment of conviction dated September 4, 2025, and the order on sentence dated September 24, 2025, acquitted the appellant of all charges, and ordered his immediate release from custody.
Cause Title: P (Identity Redacted) v. State (NCT of Delhi) (Neutral Citation: 2026:DHC:6876-DB)
Appearances:
Appellant: Shivek Trehan, Akash Chandna, and Manika Pandey, Advocates.
Respondent: Ritesh Kumar Bahri, APP, Lalit Luthra and Randeep Kumar, Advocates, with SI Preeti.
Victim: Arushi Anthwal, Advocate.