Victim Has Locus To Request Court To Summon Witnesses Under Section 311 CrPC In State Prosecution: Allahabad High Court Order 2 Rule 2 CPC Cannot Be Ground to Reject a Plaint: Supreme Court Draws Crucial Distinction Between Bar to Sue and Bar by Law No Right to Lawyer Before Advisory Board in Preventive Detention — Unless Government Appears Through Legal Practitioner: Supreme Court Wife's Dowry Statement Cannot Be Used to Prosecute Her for 'Giving' Dowry: Supreme Court Upholds Section 7(3) Shield Husband's Loan Repayments Cannot Reduce Wife's Maintenance: Supreme Court Raises Amount to ₹25,000 From ₹15,000 Prisoners Don't Surrender Their Rights at the Prison Gate: Supreme Court Issues Binding SOP to End Delays in Legal Aid Appeals A Judgment Must Be a Self-Contained Document Even When Defendant Never Appears: Supreme Court on Ex Parte Decrees Court Cannot Dismiss Ex Parte Suit on Unpleaded, Unframed Issue: Supreme Court Sets Aside Specific Performance Decree Denied on Title Erroneous High Court Observations Cannot Be Used to Stake Property Claims: Supreme Court Steps In to Prevent Misuse of Judicial Observations No Criminal Proceedings Would Have Been Initiated Had Financial Settlement Succeeded: Supreme Court Grants Anticipatory Bail In Rape Case Directors Cannot Escape Pollution Law Prosecution by Claiming Ignorance: Allahabad High Court Refuses to Quash Summons Against Company Directors Order 7 Rule 11 CPC | Court Cannot Peek Into Defence While Rejecting Plaint: Delhi High Court Death 3½ Months After Accident Doesn't Break Causal Link If Doctors Testify Injuries Could Cause Death: Andhra Pradesh High Court LLB Intern Posed as Supreme Court Advocate, Used Fake Bar Council Card and Police Station Seals to Defraud Victims of Rs. 80 Lakhs: Gujarat High Court Rejects Anticipatory Bail Husband Who Travels to Wife's City on Leave, Cohabits With Her, Then Claims She 'Never Lived With Him' Cannot Prove Cruelty: Jharkhand High Court Liquor Licence Is a State Privilege, Not a Citizen's Right — No Vested Right of Renewal Survives a Change in Rules: Karnataka High Court Sets Aside Stay on E-Auction Policy Court Holiday Cannot Save Prosecution From Default Bail: MP High Court No Search At Your Premises, No Incriminating Document, No Case: Rajasthan HC Quashes Rs. 18 Crore Tax Assessment Under Section 153C Limitation Act | Litigant Cannot Be Punished For Court's Own Docket Load: J&K High Court

Delay in lodging FIR cannot be used as a ritualistic formula for discarding the prosecution Case: Delhi High Court Reverses Acquittal of Father Accused of Assaulting Minor Daughter

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


The High Court of Delhi held that delay in filing the FIR is not fatal in cases of sexual assault, particularly involving family members, if the delay is satisfactorily explained. This reversal of acquittal was based on the credibility and consistency of the victim's testimony, supported by medical and corroborative evidence.

The case involves the respondent P.D.D., who was acquitted by the Trial Court on charges of aggravated penetrative sexual assault on his minor daughter, threats, and physical assault on his wife and son. The State and the victim, along with her mother and brother, appealed against the acquittal.

Explanation of Delay: The Court acknowledged the victim's delay in reporting the incidents due to fear and familial pressure. The High Court emphasized that the social stigma and fear of retribution often prevent immediate reporting.

Legal Precedents: The Court referred to various judgments (e.g., Tulshidas Kanolkar vs. The State of Goa) supporting that delay in filing FIR in sexual assault cases can be condoned if satisfactorily explained.

Victim's Testimony: The Court found the victim's testimony consistent and credible. Minor discrepancies in her statements were deemed trivial and not undermining her overall credibility.

Corroborative Evidence: The victim's testimony was corroborated by her mother and brother, as well as medical evidence. The Court emphasized that the victim's testimony alone, if found reliable, could suffice for conviction.

Misinterpretation by Trial Court: The High Court criticized the Trial Court for placing undue emphasis on minor contradictions and misinterpreting the evidence. The Trial Court's judgment was deemed based on conjectures.

Statutory Presumptions: The High Court highlighted the presumptions under Sections 29 and 30 of the POCSO Act, which mandate the court to presume the accused's guilt unless proven otherwise.

False Implication Argument: The defense's argument that the case was fabricated due to matrimonial discord was rejected. The Court found no convincing evidence of false implication.

Decision: The High Court reversed the acquittal, convicting the respondent under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, and Sections 506 and 323 of the IPC. The matter was scheduled for arguments on sentencing, and directions were issued for a victim impact report and confirmation of interim compensation.

Date of Decision: May 14, 2024

State vs. P.D.D.

Latest Legal News