The High Court of Delhi, in a significant ruling, has upheld the conviction and sentence of a man for repeatedly raping a minor, holding that the consistent and credible testimony of a child victim is sufficient to sustain a conviction, even in the absence of conclusive forensic evidence. Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri dismissed the appeal filed by the convict, Tonny, affirming the trial court’s decision and underscoring the legal presumption of guilt under Section 29 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012.
The appeal challenged the judgment dated 25.02.2019 and the order on sentence dated 27.02.2019 from the Special Court (POCSO Act) at Karkardooma Courts, Delhi. The appellant was convicted under Sections 366 (kidnapping), 376 (rape), and 506 (criminal intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), along with Section 6 of the POCSO Act. He was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 12 years for the offence under the POCSO Act, along with other concurrent sentences.
Background of the Case
The case originated from an FIR registered on August 4, 2017, based on the statement of the victim, a 10-year-old girl. The child alleged that the appellant, who worked at a woodwork shop on her way to school, would offer her eatables like chowmein and kachori. She stated that he repeatedly took her to his shop, removed her clothes and his own, and committed rape.
The victim revealed that the appellant threatened to “drown her in a drain or cut her like a piece of wood” if she disclosed the abuse to anyone. Due to these threats, she remained silent. The last incident of assault occurred on August 1, 2017. The matter came to light when her school teacher inquired, and the child confided in her. The teacher then informed the victim’s mother, leading to the police complaint.
Following the complaint, the victim’s medical examination was conducted, and her statement was recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.), where she reiterated her allegations. The appellant was subsequently arrested.
Arguments of the Parties
The appellant’s counsel argued that the conviction was flawed due to several inconsistencies in the prosecution’s case. It was contended that the FSL report was inconclusive as no male DNA could be extracted from the samples. The counsel also pointed out that the medical examination did not show any external injuries on the victim. A major point of contention was the contradictory testimonies of the Investigating Officer (I.O.) and the victim’s teacher, Ms. ‘D’ (PW-6), regarding the time and manner of the appellant’s arrest.
In his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the appellant claimed he was falsely implicated by the victim’s parents in connivance with his employer (PW-5), with whom he had a dispute over salary payments.
The learned APP for the State, supported by the Amicus Curiae representing the victim, refuted these arguments. They maintained that the child victim’s testimony was consistent, credible, and corroborated by the deposition of her teacher and the Medico-Legal Case (MLC) report. The Amicus Curiae further submitted that any minor lacuna in the investigation, such as the non-examination of certain police officials or teachers, should not benefit the appellant. It was also argued that the FSL report was inconclusive because the samples were collected days after the last incident of assault.
Court’s Analysis and Decision
After examining the evidence and arguments, the High Court found no merit in the appeal. Justice Ohri noted that the victim’s age of 10 at the time of the incident was not disputed, thus classifying her as a “child” under the POCSO Act.
Addressing the inconsistencies regarding the appellant’s arrest, the court observed, “…such an inconsistency does not, in my opinion, enure to the benefit of the appellant.” The judgment clarified that even if the teacher’s testimony were to be disregarded on account of these inconsistencies, “the deposition of the child victim, if found to be credible and reliable, would by itself be sufficient to sustain the appellant’s conviction.”
The court relied on established legal principles regarding the appreciation of a child’s testimony, citing the Supreme Court’s decision in State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Balveer Singh (2025 SCC OnLine SC 390). The judgment reiterated that a competent child witness’s evidence does not require corroboration if it inspires confidence and can form the sole basis for conviction.
Further, the court invoked the statutory presumption under Section 29 of the POCSO Act. Citing the Supreme Court in Sambhubhai Raisangbhai Padhiyar v. State of Gujarat ((2025) 2 SCC 399), the court affirmed that this presumption of guilt comes into play once the prosecution establishes the foundational facts of the case.
In the present case, the court found that the victim’s testimony met the standard of reliability. The judgment states: “In the present case, the record shows that the child victim has consistently stated that the appellant… had committed the offence of penetration by inserting his male organ into her urinary part, on not one but several occasions. On this aspect, her stand has remained consistent and credible, and the appellant has not been able to demolish her testimony in cross-examination.”
The court dismissed the appellant’s defense of a salary dispute as “clearly moonshine,” noting there was no evidence that the shop owner knew the victim or her family. The MLC report, which noted a ruptured hymen, was found to lend further support to the victim’s testimony.
Concluding its analysis, the court held: “These factors, taken together, establish the foundational facts of the prosecution case, thereby attracting the presumption under Section 29 POCSO.”
Finding no reason to interfere with the trial court’s findings, the High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the impugned judgment and order on sentence.
