-
by sayum
14 November 2026 12:13 PM
"The testimony of a prosecutrix in a case of sexual assault stands on the same footing as that of an injured witness. Her testimony, if found reliable, cogent and trustworthy, can by itself form the basis of conviction without requiring independent corroboration." Observing that the testimony of a victim in a sexual assault prosecution stands on par with an injured witness and requires no independent corroboration if it inspires judicial confidence, the Delhi High Court bench of Justice Madhu Jain on November 3, 2026, upheld the conviction and 20-year sentence of an accused under Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act) and Sections 363, 376, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).
The prosecution case stemmed from a March 2021 complaint by a mother regarding the disappearance of her minor daughter, who was subsequently rescued from the appellant's custody after being subjected to repeated penetrative sexual assault in an abandoned room behind a temple park under duress and threats. Following a trial, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Special POCSO Court, North-West, Rohini, convicted the appellant and sentenced him to 20 years of rigorous imprisonment, besides directing the disbursal of Rs. 10.50 lakhs as victim compensation under Section 357A CrPC.
The primary legal issues before the Court were whether a conviction under Section 6 of the POCSO Act and Section 376 IPC can be sustained exclusively on the uncorroborated testimony of a child victim when the medical examination reflects no physical injuries, and whether investigative lapses—including clerical errors in seizure memos and delay in recording statements under Section 164 CrPC—are fatal to the prosecution's case.
Addressing the challenge to the victim's age, the High Court held that the prosecution had conclusively discharged its burden under the POCSO statutory framework. The Court noted that PW-4, an official from the school first attended by the child, proved the admission register and affidavit recording her date of birth as May 26, 2008, establishing that she was roughly 12 years and 9 months old at the time of the offence, which cannot be dislodged by minor oral variations.
School records prevail over oral ambiguity in establishing the minority of a POCSO victim
Turning to the substantive evidentiary weight of the child victim's deposition, Justice Jain reiterated that the law places a prosecutrix's evidence on the high pedestal of an injured witness. The Court noted that independent corroboration is merely a rule of prudence rather than a rigid legal imperative, observing that minor contradictions cannot justify throwing out testimony that remains fundamentally steadfast.
Relying on the Supreme Court’s decisions in State of Himachal Pradesh v. Manga Singh and Phool Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, the bench underscored that medical corroboration is not an indispensable prerequisite for securing a conviction in sexual assault cases. The Court observed that the child victim had withstood extensive cross-examination, gave explicit and consistent descriptions of penetrative acts in her Section 164 CrPC statement as well as before the trial court, and demonstrated why she was terrorized into silence.
Solitary deposition of prosecutrix suffices if it inspires confidence, absence of medical trauma not fatal
"A comparison of the statements of the prosecutrix recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. with her testimony before the learned Trial Court reveals consistency on the material particulars of the prosecution case," the Court recorded, discarding the defense theory of false implication.
The Court firmly rejected the appellant's submissions alleging fatal defects in the investigation, such as discrepant dates on seizure memos, delay in recording Section 164 CrPC statements, and failure to preserve CCTV footage or examine independent witnesses. The bench stressed that procedural imperfections by investigating officers cannot defeat substantive justice where the victim’s narrative remains unblemished.
Defective investigation cannot be a ground to jettison otherwise trustworthy and cogent prosecution evidence
Citing Ashok v. State, the bench held that evidence must be evaluated on its intrinsic merits. "The appellant has pointed out certain discrepancies in the prosecution case, including the initial missing complaint referring to an unknown person, the difference in the dates of recovery and counselling, the delay in recording the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., discrepancies in the seizure memos and non-examination of independent witnesses... The aforesaid discrepancies, in the facts of the present case, do not discredit the otherwise cogent and trustworthy testimony of the prosecutrix," the Court observed.
The High Court further held that repeated penetrative acts unequivocally attracted Section 5(l) of the POCSO Act. In confirming the applicability of Section 5(n) of the POCSO Act, the Court held that the appellant resided in the same household, as the victim's mother had categorically testified that the accused stayed in their jhuggi as her ‘dharam bhai’.
Statutory minimum sentence under Section 6 of the POCSO Act allows no judicial reduction
Evaluating the quantum of punishment, Justice Jain held that Section 6 of the POCSO Act mandates a statutory minimum sentence of twenty years of rigorous imprisonment for aggravated penetrative sexual assault. Given the statutory bar, the tender age of the victim, and the gravity of the trauma inflicted, the High Court held that the trial court's award of the minimum prescribed term alongside concurrent sentences under the IPC warranted no appellate intervention.
The High Court consequently dismissed the appeal, affirmed the conviction and order on sentence passed by the Special POCSO Court, and upheld the compensation award of Rs. 10,50,000 to the child victim, extending the benefit of set-off under Section 428 CrPC to the appellant.
Date of Decision: November 3, 2026
