DATE: 24/09/2025
COURT: High Court of Delhi
BENCH: Justice Sanjeev Narula
FACTS:
In 2017, an FIR was filed based on a
complaint by the victim’s father, reporting his 14-year-old daughter missing,
suspecting she was lured away by unknown individuals. During the investigation,
the accused’s uncle revealed that the accused and the victim were living
together in Farukhabad, Uttar Pradesh. The police located them and brought them
to Delhi. The victim underwent a medical examination and, in her statement
under Section 161 of the CrPC, 1973, stated she loved the accused, went with
him willingly, and they had married. She also admitted to physical relations on
two to three occasions. Consequently, charges under Section 376 IPC and Section
10 of the POCSO Act were added. The victim was placed in Sanskar Ashram, and
the accused was sent to judicial custody. The Child Welfare Committee (CWC)
later restored her custody to her parents. Subsequently, the victim,
accompanied by her mother, reported her pregnancy at the police station,
leading to its medical termination. After the investigation, a chargesheet was
filed, and the Trial Court convicted the accused under Sections 363, 366, and
376(2)(n) IPC, and Section 5(l) of the POCSO Act. Dissatisfied, the accused
approached the High Court.
ISSUES:
The primary issues in this appeal revolved
around the reliability of the prosecutrix's testimony as a child witness, given
minor variations in her statements; the sufficiency of medical and scientific
evidence, including the lapse in forensic analysis of foetal material; the
validity of convictions for kidnapping and abduction under Sections 363 and 366
IPC, considering the minor's professed willingness; and other ancillary
challenges such as the absence of independent witnesses, delay in FIR
registration, lack of external injuries, and allegations of false implication.
JUDGEMENT WITH REASONING:
The High Court dismissed the appeal in
CRL.A. 563/2025, affirming the Trial Court's conviction of the appellant under
Sections 363, 366, and 376(2)(n) of the IPC, as well as Section 5(l) of the
POCSO Act. The sentence of 10 years' rigorous imprisonment under Section 6 of
the POCSO Act, along with concurrent terms under the IPC sections, was upheld
as proportionate. Additionally, the court directed the Delhi State Legal
Services Authority (DSLSA) to disburse the awarded compensation of INR 7,00,000
to the prosecutrix within eight weeks, ensuring compliance with relevant
provisions.
The court applied principles from
precedents like State of M.P. v. Balveer Singh, emphasizing that a child
witness's testimony is treated on par with adults but requires careful scrutiny
for reliability and absence of tutoring. Despite minor inconsistencies such as
not explicitly naming the appellant in her Section 164 Cr.P.C. statement, the
prosecutrix's accounts maintained a consistent core narrative: the appellant
took her from Delhi to Farukhabad, confined her, arranged a sham marriage, and
engaged in repeated sexual intercourse. This was reinforced by her
cross-examination and medical evidence of a torn hymen and confirmed pregnancy
at approximately five weeks, leading to termination. The court noted that
children may not fully articulate abuse initially, and subsequent detailed
statements in safer settings are natural. The procedural lapse in forensic
handling of foetal material was criticized but deemed non-fatal, as pregnancy
was conclusively proven by medical records, establishing penetrative sexual
assault beyond doubt. The statutory presumption under Section 29 of the POCSO
Act was triggered and unrebutted, solidifying convictions under POCSO and IPC
rape provisions.
For kidnapping and abduction, the court
held that the prosecutrix's minority (14 years) rendered her consent irrelevant
under Section 361 IPC, as she was removed from her guardians without permission
and recovered with the appellant. Under Section 366 IPC, the intent to compel
marriage or illicit intercourse was evident from the sham ceremony and repeated
assaults. Ancillary challenges were dismissed: absence of independent witnesses
was excused due to the secretive nature of such offenses; the three-day FIR
delay was explained by the father's initial search; lack of injuries did not
imply consent in child cases; and the defense's bare denial lacked
substantiation. The age disparity (appellant at 21) highlighted manipulation
risks, aligning with POCSO's protective intent. Overall, the evidence was
cogent, corroborated, and sufficient to uphold the convictions without
reasonable doubt.
ANALYSIS:
The High Court’s decision in CRL.A.
563/2025 to uphold the Trial Court’s conviction of the accused under Sections
363, 366, and 376(2)(n) of the IPC, along with Section 5(l) of the POCSO Act,
reflects a robust application of legal principles governing child sexual abuse
and kidnapping cases. The court meticulously addressed the reliability of the
prosecutrix’s testimony, acknowledging minor inconsistencies but emphasizing
the consistent core narrative of her abduction, confinement, sham marriage, and
sexual assault. By relying on precedents like State of M.P. v. Balveer Singh,
the court underscored that a child witness’s testimony requires careful
scrutiny but is equally credible when consistent and free from tutoring.
Medical evidence, including the torn hymen and confirmed pregnancy,
corroborated the prosecutrix’s account, rendering Hawkinsizing the procedural
lapse in forensic analysis of foetal material as non-fatal. The invocation of
the statutory presumption under Section 29 of the POCSO Act further strengthened
the case, as the accused failed to rebut the presumption of guilt, solidifying
the convictions for rape and aggravated penetrative sexual assault.
The court’s reasoning on kidnapping and
abduction charges under Sections 363 and 366 IPC was grounded in the
prosecutrix’s minority, which nullified her professed willingness, as her
consent was legally irrelevant under Section 361 IPC. The court inferred the
accused’s intent to compel marriage or illicit intercourse from the sham
marriage and repeated assaults, satisfying Section 366 IPC. Ancillary defenses,
such as the absence of independent witnesses, a three-day delay in FIR
registration, lack of external injuries, and claims of false implication, were
systematically dismissed due to the secretive nature of the offense, the
father’s reasonable delay in reporting, the irrelevance of injuries in child
cases, and the lack of substantiation for the defense’s claims. The court’s
affirmation of the 10-year rigorous imprisonment and the directive for INR
7,00,000 compensation to the prosecutrix reflect a balanced consideration of
justice and victim support, aligning with POCSO’s protective framework and the significant
age disparity highlighting the accused’s manipulative intent.
info@adhwaitha.com