The Delhi High Court has affirmed the conviction of a man for repeatedly raping a 13-year-old girl for almost 8 days. The High Court held that the minor discrepancy in the statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C of the Prosecutrix cannot be the ground to discredit her entire evidence.

The High Court was considering a Criminal Appeal filed under Section 415 read with Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) by the Appellant challenging the Judgment whereby he was convicted and sentenced to undergo 12 years RI under Section 376(2), 506(II) IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012.

The Single Bench of Justice Neena Bansal Krishna held, “The overwhelming evidence led by the Prosecution, establishes the act of rape of the Prosecutrix, who was not only 13 years old but was also suffering from amputation of arm by the Appellant. The minor discrepancy in the Statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C of the Prosecutrix cannot be the ground to discredit the entire evidence of the Prosecutrix. The testimony of the Prosecutrix was consistent and they corroborated by other witnesses.”

Advocate Adit S. Pujari represented the Appellant while APP Manjeet Arya represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The survivor stated that the Accused used to reside in the lane, next to her house and one day when her grandmother had gone to the hospital, he took her to his house on the pretext of eating meat, where he did a wrong act with her. He removed her clothes and committed rape. She raised an alarm on which the accused allegedly gagged her mouth and threatened that if she disclosed the incident to anyone, he would kill her with his truck. She did not disclose about the incident to anyone because of fear. The Appellant kept on doing the same for eight days. On the day of alleged incident, her grandmother came to the house of the appellant and saved her from him. Thereafter, she called the PCR.

On the basis of the statement of the Prosecutrix, the FIR was lodged. During the investigations, her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C was recorded. Upon completion of investigations, charges were framed under Section 363, 366A,376(2)(i) of the IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act. The ASJ, after due consideration of the evidence, convicted the Appellant. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, the appellant approached the High Court.

Reasoning

The Bench took note of the fact that the Appellant has been charged with repeated rape of a 13-year-old Prosecutrix over a period of seven days when he was caught by the maternal grandmother on the 8th day, who also was a witness to the incident. The Bench found that the record and the Prosecution, had proved beyond reasonable doubt that the age of the Prosecutrix, was 13 years at the time of incident. “Even if for the sake of arguments, though without any evidence of the Appellant, is accepted that the child was 17 years old, then too she was below 18 years of age and the POCSO Act was attracted. It is held that the learned ASJ rightly concluded the age of the child as 13 years”, the Bench mentioned.

On a perusal of the testimony of the three witnesses, the Bench noted that they all had been consistent about the incident. They had coherently and consistently deposed that the child was being raped by the Appellant since last eight days, but was caught red handed in the night of July 18-19, 2018. The other important and pertinent piece of evidence was the FSL wherein the DNA of the Appellant, did not match that of the Prosecutrix. On this aspect, the Bench noted that the Prosecutrix in her Statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. had stated that the Appellant had used the condom and this was a significant development to explain the non-presence of semen or matching of DNA of the Appellant, with that of the Prosecutrix.

The Bench was of the view that the testimony of the Prosecutrix not only had been consistent but she had withstood the test of cross-examination despite being a young child of the 13 years. Thus, finding no merit in the appeal, the Bench dismissed the same.

Cause Title: Ram Kuber v. State (Nct of Delhi) (Neutral Citation: 2026:DHC:50)

Appearance

Appellant: Advocate (DHCLSC) Adit S. Pujari, Advocates Bhavesh Seth, Siddharth Kaushal

Respondent: APP Manjeet Arya, Advocate (DHCLSC) Vrinda Bhandari, Advocate Vanshita Gupta

Click here to read/download Order





Delhi High CourtJustice Neena Bansal Krishna

Tulip Kanth

Assistant Editor

Tulip Kanth is an Assistant Editor at Verdictum having over 5 years of experience in the field of legal journalism and editing. She extensively covers judgments of the Supreme Court, High Courts as well as Tribunals. She has previously worked with a legal publishing website where she oversaw the work of other editors and has also created updates on notifications of different Government Ministries. She holds an English Honours Degree from SGTB Khalsa College, Delhi University and has completed her LLB course with specialisation in Corporate Law from Amity University.