Minor Discrepancies Cannot Eclipse the Core Truth of Sexual Violence Against a Child: Delhi High Court Upholds Aggravated Sexual Assault Conviction of Uncle on Minor Niece

“Testimony of a Five-Year-Old Survivor, Though Simple, Was Consistent on Material Particulars”— Delhi High Court dismissed a criminal appeal challenging the conviction of a 28-year-old man for aggravated penetrative sexual assault on his five-year-old niece. The Court, presided over by Justice Amit Sharma, affirmed the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (POCSO), Saket Courts, New Delhi, which had sentenced the appellant to 11 years of rigorous imprisonment under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act) and the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Relying upon the consistent testimony of the child survivor, corroborated by medical evidence and DNA analysis, the Court held that the statutory presumption under Sections 29 and 30 of the POCSO Act stood unrebutted and the conviction warranted no interference.

The case arose from an incident on October 30, 2015, when the child survivor was allegedly found in a locked room with her maternal uncle, the appellant. The prosecution case was that the appellant had sexually assaulted the child in his room on the second floor of their shared residence. The mother of the survivor (PW-6), her elder sister (PW-2), and her father (PW-3) all testified to having found the survivor in a partially undressed condition, with the appellant seen closing his trousers. A First Information Report (FIR No. 1082/15) was registered at Police Station Ambedkar Nagar under Sections 376 and 506 IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act. The child was medically examined at AIIMS, where a hymenal tear and bruising were noted. A jute bag recovered from the crime scene, on which the appellant admitted to wiping himself, was later found to contain his DNA.

The Sessions Court convicted the appellant for offences under Sections 376(2)/506 IPC and Section 6 read with Sections 5(m) and 5(n) of the POCSO Act and sentenced him to 11 years' rigorous imprisonment along with a fine and compensation to the victim.

Presumption Under Sections 29 and 30 of POCSO Not Rebutted

The Court invoked the statutory presumption under Section 29 of the POCSO Act, observing:

“The defence taken by the appellant has failed to prove to the contrary, the presumption raised under the POCSO Act.” (Para 37)

The Court emphasized that once the prosecution establishes the foundational facts of sexual assault, the burden shifts to the accused to disprove the charges beyond reasonable doubt. Here, the appellant's claims of false implication due to property disputes were found unsubstantiated and speculative. The defence did not succeed in dislodging the statutory presumption of guilt.

"DNA Profiles Generated from the Jute Bag Were Found to Be Similar to That of the Appellant"—Court Accepts FSL Evidence as Conclusive

The Court relied heavily on forensic evidence, especially the DNA profile matching the appellant with the jute bag recovered from the scene.

“On DNA examination, the report establishes the genetic material of the appellant was found on the jute bag.” (Para 33)

The argument that the bag could have been tampered with was dismissed. The Court noted that the chain of custody had been clearly established through the testimonies of PW-5 (arresting officer), PW-10 (seizure witness), and PW-8 (FSL dispatch officer). There was no cross-examination of these witnesses on the issue of tampering or improper storage.

“Nothing has been brought on record by the defence by way of cross-examination to show that the case property was not deposited with the maalkhana or that it was tampered with.” (Para 32)

"The Survivor’s Testimony, Though of a Child, Is Consistent in All Material Particulars"—Court Upholds Credibility of Victim

The child survivor, who was just over five years old at the time of her testimony, described the incident with clarity, stating that the appellant had inserted his private part into her vagina and threatened to kill her if she screamed. The Court remarked:

“It is noted that the survivor otherwise has been consistent in her testimony with regard to the appellant inserting his private part into her private part.” (Para 29)

Despite minor inconsistencies, the Court declined to discredit her evidence, noting that such discrepancies were natural given her age and the traumatic nature of the incident. Citing State of Punjab v. Gurmeet Singh (1996), the Court reiterated that minor contradictions do not erode the credibility of a sexually abused child.

“Allegation of Tutoring by Mother is Unfounded”—Court Dismisses Defence Theory

During cross-examination, the survivor had admitted that her mother told her what to say before the police and court. The Court held this statement irrelevant in view of the corroborative medical and forensic evidence:

“Such a statement of the survivor, who is aged about 5 years, will not bear any significance keeping in view the fact that the MLC as well as FSL report fully corroborates her testimony.” (Para 35)

The Court also found that the trial court had appropriately assessed the competence of the child before recording her testimony and that the evidence of the sister (PW-2), mother (PW-6), and father (PW-3) further supported the version of the incident.

“Bruise and Hymenal Tear Support the Survivor’s Allegation”—Medical Evidence Reinforces Assault

The medical evidence presented in the form of MLC (Ex.PW-12/A) showed physical signs of assault consistent with the survivor’s testimony:

“Labia Minora…..Bruise+small laceration 0.5 cm… Hymen….small tear at 7’o clock position… no active bleeding.” (Para 21)

This medical corroboration, alongside DNA evidence, fortified the case beyond reasonable doubt.

“Alleged Motive of False Implication Found Baseless”—Court Rejects Property Dispute Defence

The appellant argued that he was falsely implicated due to a property dispute and attempts to evict his family from the house. However, the Court held:

“The assertion on behalf of the appellant does not seem probable.” (Para 35)

Despite examining his mother (DW-1) and sister (DW-3), the appellant failed to establish any credible motive that could explain a false charge of this gravity against a family member.

Conviction Affirmed, No Infirmity Found in Trial Court Judgment

Justice Amit Sharma concluded that the trial court had rightly appreciated the evidence and awarded appropriate sentence:

“There is no infirmity in the judgement of conviction dated 27.09.2023 and order on sentence dated 04.03.2024.” (Para 44)

The High Court upheld the sentence of 11 years’ rigorous imprisonment under Section 6 POCSO and 3 years under Section 506 IPC, along with ₹5 lakh compensation to the survivor.

Date of Decision: June 3, 2025