Disparity In Age & Maturity Magnifies Likelihood Of Manipulation, A Risk Statute Is Designed To Guard Against: Delhi High Court Affirms Conviction In POCSO Case

The Delhi High Court has affirmed the conviction of a man who was accused of raping a 14-year-old girl in the year 2017.

An Appeal was preferred by the accused, challenging the Judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ), which convicted him under the provisions of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act).

A Single Bench of Justice Sanjeev Narula observed, “It is not lost on the Court that in her earliest accounts, the Prosecutrix portrayed herself as being “in love” with the Appellant and even alluded to marriage. However sincere such feelings may have appeared from her perspective, they cannot eclipse the legal reality. At the relevant time, she was a child of about 14 years. The Appellant, then a 21-year-old adult, was fully conscious that the Prosecutrix was underage. At the very least, there is nothing on record to suggest that he entertained any bona fide belief that she had attained majority. The disparity in age and maturity magnifies the likelihood of influence or manipulation, a risk the statute is designed precisely to guard against.”

The Bench added that what may have been perceived as affection or willingness is, in the eyes of the law, immaterial; more importantly, the circumstances suggest a relationship marked by the vulnerability of the minor and the capacity of the adult to manipulate.

Advocate Sudarshan Rajan appeared for the Appellant while APP Hemant Mehla and Advocate Inderjeet Sidhu appeared for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

An FIR was registered in 2017 on a complaint lodged by the father of the victim, reporting that his minor daughter aged 14 years had been missing. It was suspected that she had been enticed away by unknown persons. During the investigation, the statement of the Appellant-accused’s uncle was recorded, wherein he disclosed that the accused and the victim were residing together in Farukhabad, Uttar Pradesh. Thereafter, the police traced them and brought them to Delhi. The victim was medically examined and in her statement under Section 161 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC), she stated that she was in love with the accused, had accompanied him of her own accord, and that they had married. She further admitted that they had established physical relations on two to three occasions.

In light of the disclosure, Section 376 IPC and Section 10 of the POCSO Act were added to the case. Subsequently, the victim was placed in Sanskar Ashram while the Appellant was remanded to judicial custody. Pursuant to orders of the Child Welfare Committee (CWC), her custody was restored to her parents. After some days, she visited the police station with her mother and informed that she was pregnant. Hence, her pregnancy was medically terminated after her medical examination. Upon conclusion of investigation, chargesheet was filed, and charges were framed against the accused. Therefore, the Trial Court convicted the accused for offences under Sections 363, 366, and 376(2)(n) IPC, and Section 5(l) of the POCSO Act. Being aggrieved, he was before the High Court.

Reasoning

The High Court in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, said, “In prosecutions under the POCSO Act, the plea of “consent” is immaterial where the victim is a minor. Thus, even if the Prosecutrix did not characterise the sexual acts as forcible in her earliest accounts, or even described them as consensual in her MLC, such statements do not exculpate the Appellant. The crucial fact remains that the Appellant took her to Farukhabad and engaged in sexual intercourse with her. As for the omission of his name in her Section 164 statement, it bears emphasis that in all her other statements, Section 161 statement, MLC history, deposition before court, she has consistently and unequivocally identified the Appellant.”

The Court was of the view that the victim’s testimony cannot be doubted or deemed unreliable as her statements disclose a consistent and coherent core.

“Throughout the proceedings, she has consistently recounted the fundamental fact: the Appellant took the Prosecutrix away from Delhi to Farukhabad, confined her at his uncle’s house, arranged a purported marriage, and engaged in repeated sexual intercourse with her”, it noted.

The Court remarked that while it is true that her statement under Section 164 CrPC did not explicitly name the Appellant, and her later accounts offered more comprehensive details about the alleged incident, these minor variations do not constitute material contradictions capable of undermining her credibility.

“At every stage, she implicated the Appellant as the man who took her away and had sexual relations with her during the relevant period. This reiterative narrative, tested in cross-examination and reinforced by medical evidence of pregnancy, materially supports the Prosecution’s case”, it further said.

The Court reiterated that a child of tender years may not possess the vocabulary or presence of mind to articulate the precise nature of the abuse in her initial statement; therefore, it is both natural and expected that her subsequent statements, given in safer and more formal environments, would provide greater clarity and detail.

“Taking these factors into account, the Court is of the opinion that the testimony of the Prosecutrix is coherent, credible, and sufficiently reliable to command the confidence of this Court. … The credibility of the Prosecutrix’s account finds substantial reinforcement in the medical evidence on record”, it also noted.

Conclusion

Moreover, the Court observed that the procedural lapse in relation to the handling of foetal material, though regrettable, does not undermine the core evidentiary foundation of the prosecution’s case.

“In the present case, after removing the Prosecutrix from the custody of her parents, the Appellant transported her to Farukhabad, where a purported marriage ceremony was arranged by his relatives without the consent of the Prosecutrix or her lawful guardians. During her stay there, the Appellant engaged in repeated sexual intercourse with her. These circumstances clearly demonstrate both the intent and the consequence contemplated by Section 366 and fully satisfy its ingredients. The conviction under this provision, therefore, stands on a firm legal footing”, it concluded.

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

Cause Title- Rajnish v. State NCT of Delhi (Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:8789)

Appearance:

Appellant: Advocates Sudarshan Rajan and Hitain Bajaj.

Respondent: APP Hemant Mehla, Advocates Inderjeet Sidhu, Lalit Choudhary, and Aditya D. Atri.

Click here to read/download the Judgment