Trial Courts Must Award Just Compensation In POCSO Cases Beyond Fine Amounts; Interim Payment No Reason To Deny Final Relief: Madras High Court Section 482 CrPC Power Not For Conducting 'Mini-Trial'; Disputed Facts Must Be Adjudicated At Trial: Allahabad High Court Right To Walk On Demarcated Footpaths Is A Fundamental Right; Municipal Authorities Under Enforceable Duty To Provide Pedestrian Infrastructure: Supreme Court Right To Walk Is A Fundamental Right Under Articles 19(1)(d) & 21; Priority Over Motorised Vehicles: Supreme Court Municipal Commissioner Is Disciplinary Authority For All Employees Post-1993 Amendment; Existing Regulations Can't Fetter Statutory Power: Supreme Court High Court Cannot Force Plaintiff To Accept Monetary Compensation Instead Of Removal Of Encroachment Without Prayer: Supreme Court Recruitment Merit Is Not A Vested Right; Public Interest Justifies Disclosing Marks Of Candidates Outside Selection Zone: Supreme Court Special Police Establishment Not An 'Intelligence & Security Organisation', State Cannot Exempt It From RTI Act: Supreme Court Medical Practitioner Not Negligent Merely Because Result Was A Failure If Procedure Adopted Was Acceptable To Medical Science: Calcutta High Court Long Service Cannot Be Denied Regularization On Mere Technicalities If Appointment Wasn't Illegal: Andhra Pradesh High Court Rejection Of Nomination Paper Can Only Be Challenged Through Election Petition; Article 329(b) Bars Writ Jurisdiction: Supreme Court NI Act | Benefit Of Presumptions Under Sections 118 & 139 Not Available If Complainant Lacks Direct Knowledge Of Transaction: Kerala High Court Landowners Entitled To Solatium Under National Highways Act; Failure To Grant Is Ground To Challenge Award Under Section 34: MP High Court Transfer Policy Only Broad Guideline, Not Enforceable Under Article 226/227 In Absence Of Mala Fides: Rajasthan High Court

POCSO | Merely Because Hymen Found To Be Intact, Does Not Mean Victim Not Subjected To Penetrative Sexual Assault: Delhi High Court Upholds Conviction

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant judgment , the Delhi High Court upheld the conviction of the appellant in a case involving charges under Section 376(2)(i) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act). The court, while delivering its verdict, reduced the appellant’s sentence, highlighting the credibility of the child victim’s testimony.

The bench, headed by HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT BANSAL, found the child victim’s testimony to be reliable and trustworthy. The court noted that there were no inconsistencies in her statements and emphasized the importance of the child victim’s testimony. In the judgment, the bench stated, “The child victim in all her statements has supported the case of the prosecution and there are no inconsistencies in her statements. The child victim, in all her statements has consistently maintained that the accused removed her underwear and inserted his finger in her private parts.”

The court also considered the corroborative evidence provided by the mother of the child victim. The mother’s immediate actions, including confronting the accused and reporting the incident to the police, were deemed relevant and admissible as res gestae evidence under Section 6 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

Addressing the issue of a key eyewitness (PW-6) turning hostile, the court held that this did not undermine the prosecution’s case. The judgment noted that material contradictions existed in PW-6’s testimony and the appellant’s defense, and the prosecution’s case could be sustained through other evidence.

The court further discussed the medical evidence in the case, stating, “Merely because the hymen of the child victim is found to be intact, it does not mean that the victim was not subjected to penetrative sexual assault.” The court relied on precedent judgments and the definition of penetrative sexual assault under the POCSO Act to support this observation.

Regarding sentencing, the court considered the appellant’s conduct during his incarceration, his age, and the absence of any involvement in other offenses. Consequently, the court decided to reduce the appellant’s sentence from twenty years to twelve years of imprisonment, while retaining the fine imposed by the Trial Court.

Delhi High Court’s verdict underscores the importance of treating the testimony of child victims with care and sensitivity, while also highlighting the need for justice to be served based on credible evidence.

Date of Decision: January 5, 2024

PRADEEP KUMAR VS STATE

Latest Legal News