-
by Admin
14 December 2025 5:24 PM
“The testimony of the child victim is admissible, reliable and credible... supported on all fronts by depositions of independent witnesses as well as medical evidence” – In a powerful judgment Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal of a man convicted for the aggravated penetrative sexual assault of a 9-year-old boy, reaffirming that a child’s truthful and consistent testimony is enough to sustain conviction when supported by independent evidence. In Sonu v. State (NCT of Delhi) [CRL.A. No. 1190 of 2024], Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri ruled that the trial court had rightly convicted the appellant under various provisions of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, and refused to interfere with either the conviction or the sentence.
Holding that “technical inconsistencies in traumatic recollections cannot overshadow the clear narrative of abuse,” the Court observed: “The testimony of the child victim is admissible, reliable and credible. It is supported on all fronts by depositions of other independent witnesses as well as medical evidence.”
“The Child Spoke Without Fear, With Details Only Truth Can Carry”
The incident occurred on 6 December 2017, when the appellant, Sonu, lured a 9-year-old boy on the pretext of helping his sick child and took him to an isolated drainage pipe near Punjabi Bagh. There, he physically assaulted and sexually abused the child. The horrifying act was interrupted when a woman, Seema (PW3), heard the child’s screams and stopped a passing car driven by Lakshan Rana (PW4), accompanied by Bhawna Sharma (PW2). On reaching the spot, they found the appellant inside a pipe, partially undressed, forcing the child's head towards his genitals. The child shouted that the man had already put his penis in his mouth.
The child was rescued, the police were called, and the appellant was arrested at the spot. The child and the accused were both taken for medical examination. The FIR was registered under IPC and POCSO provisions, and after trial, the accused was convicted and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment
“Minor Variations in Timeline Are Natural in Narratives of Trauma”
On appeal, the defence sought to question the prosecution’s case by pointing out discrepancies in the timeline: the school closing time, the duration of the abduction, and the time of police intervention. It was also argued that a blade allegedly used to threaten the child was never recovered and that some witnesses had not corroborated every minute detail, such as the presence of other children.
Justice Ohri was unequivocal in rejecting these contentions:
“Minor discrepancies are natural in traumatic incidents and do not affect the core prosecution case... The alleged delay in DD entry is irrelevant in light of the overwhelming evidence.”
The Court emphasized that the testimony of the child victim was unwavering and matched his earlier statements, despite being recorded nearly a year after the incident.
“His Words Were Specific, Painful, and Unmistakably True”
The child victim’s testimony, recorded in court, was both detailed and direct. He stated:
“06.12.2017 ko lagbhag din ke 2 baje mein apne school se paidal aa raha thha... ek aadmi mila jisne kaha uska baccha bimaar hai, mujhe police chowki tak le chalo... par wo mujhe Punjabi Bagh ke naale par le gaya. Ussne mujhe pipe ke andar ghusa diya, meri chaati par chaar mukke maare, do mukke muh par... aur ussne apni su-su wali jagah mere muh mein daal diya.”
The child also described how he screamed for help, and a woman heard him and called for assistance. The man was beaten by the public before police arrived.
Justice Ohri noted: “The child’s statement was not only consistent, but was corroborated on every material point by eyewitnesses and medical reports.”
“Section 6 of the POCSO Act Clearly Applies – No Scope for Ambiguity”
The appellant had further argued that the ingredients for Section 6 of the POCSO Act (aggravated penetrative sexual assault) were not established. This was also dismissed firmly by the Court.
Justice Ohri ruled: “The contention that Section 6 is not attracted is specious. In light of the evidence on record and a plain reading of Section 3(a) and Section 5(m) of the POCSO Act, the ingredients stand satisfied.”
The Court added that the prosecution successfully established foundational facts under Section 29 of the POCSO Act, which allows the Court to presume guilt unless rebutted. The accused failed to rebut this presumption at any stage.
“Medical Reports Matched Every Word of the Child – His Injuries Were Real”
Medical examination reports lent strong support to the child’s version. The victim’s MLC showed injuries to his face and chest, consistent with the assault described. The accused’s own MLC indicated injuries sustained during his apprehension, aligning with witness testimonies about the mob intervention at the scene.
Dr. Rochan, a Senior Resident from Guru Gobind Singh Hospital, confirmed these injuries in court. The child’s age was verified through the Vice Principal of his school and official birth records, establishing that he was below 12 years at the time of the incident.
“The Sentence Imposed Is Not Excessive – It Reflects the Gravity of the Crime”
Rejecting the appeal in its entirety, the Court upheld the trial court’s sentencing, which included:
10 years rigorous imprisonment under Section 377 IPC,
10 years rigorous imprisonment under Section 6 POCSO,
Additional concurrent sentences under Sections 363, 367, 323, 342, 506 IPC,and the benefit of Section 428 CrPC, allowing for the time already spent in custody to be set off.
Justice Ohri concluded: “In view of the above discussions, the appeal is dismissed and the impugned judgment and order on sentence are upheld.”
This ruling of the Delhi High Court reaffirms a long-standing principle of Indian criminal jurisprudence: that the unshaken and consistent testimony of a child victim, when corroborated by credible evidence, is sufficient to convict an accused of sexual assault. The judgment sends a strong message that justice in cases involving minors cannot be derailed by peripheral inconsistencies.
The Court’s measured and compassionate analysis of the child’s account, and its commitment to protect the vulnerable from sexual abuse, marks this as a vital precedent in cases under the POCSO Act.
Date of Decision: 30/07/2025
