Offences Strike At Core Of Child’s Dignity; Deserve Stern Punishment: Delhi High Court Upholds POCSO Conviction

The Court was hearing an appeal filed by the accused against the judgment of the Trial Court, which had convicted him under Section 6 of the POCSO Act and Section 376(2) IPC.

A Bench comprising Justice Sanjeev Narula, while delivering the judgment, underscored that “…offences of this nature strike at the very core of a child’s dignity and security. Courts are under a solemn duty not only to do justice in the individual case, but also to reaffirm society’s commitment that such crimes will be met with stern consequences.”

Advocate Cauveri Birbal represented the petitioner, while Amit Ahlawat, APP, appeared on behalf of the respondents.

Background

As per the prosecution, the child was approached by the accused while she was out purchasing groceries. She was forcibly confined in a godown, where she was sexually assaulted. After the incident, she reported the matter to her mother, who immediately informed the police.

Medical examination revealed redness on her private parts, and forensic examination confirmed the presence of semen on her clothing, which matched the DNA of the accused. On the strength of this evidence, the Trial Court convicted the accused under Section 6 of the POCSO Act and Section 376(2) IPC, sentencing him to rigorous imprisonment for ten years along with a fine.

On appeal, the accused contended that the prosecution’s case was riddled with contradictions, that there were no injuries on the victim, and that the delay in forwarding exhibits to the forensic laboratory undermined the case. He further argued that, at most, the facts disclosed an offence under Section 7 of the POCSO Act (sexual assault) rather than penetrative sexual assault.

Court’s Observations

The Delhi High Court rejected these arguments, holding that the testimony of the prosecutrix was cogent, reliable, and consistent on all material aspects. The Court observed that read together, the statements given by the prosecutrix demonstrated a consistent and coherent narrative implicating the Appellant in acts of sexual assault.

The Bench noted that the victim, a child of around eight years, had consistently narrated the incident in her initial complaint, her statement under Section 164 CrPC, and her testimony during trial. The Court emphasised that minor variations in her statements could not undermine her credibility, observing that “a child of tender age cannot be expected to describe penetration with clinical precision at the earliest stage.”

The Bench also dismissed the defence’s plea of false implication, noting that “…while false implication is not impossible in sexual offence cases, the burden lies on the defence to establish some credible foundation for such a theory. None is forthcoming here. The improbability of a minor voluntarily subjecting herself to medical examination, prolonged investigation, and cross-examination without any apparent motive is a factor the Court cannot overlook.”

Endorsing the Trial Court’s reliance on the forensic record, the High Court noted that the scientific evidence firmly corroborated the prosecutrix’s testimony. The Bench observed that “the Trial Court extracted and relied upon the core features of the scientific matrix, semen on the prosecutrix’s clothes and DNA concordance with the Appellant’s reference sample, as corroborative of her testimony. That approach is sound.” It held that where the child’s account remains consistent on the essential aspects, “the presence of the Appellant’s semen on her garments at the material time is difficult to reconcile with innocence, and comfortably satisfies the Prosecution’s foundational burden.” The Court further added that the defence had failed, even on a preponderance of probabilities, to provide any credible alternative explanation consistent with innocence.

The Bench further clarified that under Section 3 of the POCSO Act, even minimal penetration amounts to penetrative sexual assault, and visible injuries are not necessary to establish the offence.

Conclusion

The Court concluded that there was no infirmity in the Trial Court’s findings. The appeal was dismissed, and the conviction and sentence were upheld. The Court also directed that compensation be disbursed to the victim under the Delhi Victim Compensation Scheme.

Cause Title: Chand Miyan Vs State (NCT of Delhi) (Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:8508)

Appearances

Petitioner: Advocates Cauveri Birbal, Kamlendu Pandey, Nistha Dhall

Respondents: Amit Ahlawat, APP with Advocate Deepal Goel

Click here to read/download Judgment