The Delhi High Court has upheld the conviction of a shopkeeper, Rajendra Singh, under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, relying on the consistent and credible testimony of the 7-year-old victim. Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri, while dismissing the appeal, affirmed the trial court’s decision, holding that the child victim’s statement was sufficient for conviction and did not require further corroboration. The court also clarified that in an appeal filed by the convict, it could not enhance the sentence or convict him for a graver offence for which he was acquitted by the trial court.
The appeal was filed by Rajendra Singh challenging the judgment dated 30.08.2018 and the order on sentence dated 27.09.2018 from the Additional Sessions Judge-06, West, Tis Hazari Courts. The trial court had convicted Singh under Section 7 read with Section 9 of the POCSO Act and sentenced him to five years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 30,000.
Background of the Case
The prosecution’s case originated from a complaint dated 01.07.2016 by the victim, a 7-year-old girl identified as “VJ”. According to the complaint, which led to the registration of FIR No. 300/16 at P.S. Nangloi, the incident occurred when she went to the appellant’s shop to purchase Fevicol for a school project.
The FIR recorded her statement alleging that the shopkeeper, Rajendra Singh, “had called her into his shop, picked her on his lap, smooched her both cheeks and inserted his finger into her vagina.” When she objected, the appellant allowed her to go, offered her eatables, and warned her not to tell anyone. The child, however, narrated the incident to her mother, who then informed the police.
Following an investigation, charges were framed against the appellant under Sections 10/6 of the POCSO Act and Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), to which he pleaded not guilty.
Arguments of the Parties
Counsel for the appellant, Mr. Sahil Malik, argued that the prosecution’s case was weak, contending that crucial witnesses were not examined and that the case was fabricated. It was submitted that the actual incident was a quarrel between the appellant and the victim’s mother over the return of a defective ‘fevicol tube’. The defence examined four witnesses to support this claim. The appellant also pointed to the Medico-Legal Certificate (MLC), which recorded no external injuries. A key procedural argument was that a “grave prejudice” was caused to the appellant because an amicus curiae was appointed to represent him on the very day the victim’s mother was examined, allegedly not allowing for an effective cross-examination.
Refuting these claims, Ms. Shubhi Gupta for the State and Ms. Urvi Kuthiala, amicus curiae for the victim, argued that the incident was reported promptly. The assault occurred between 2:30-3:00 PM, a police complaint (DD No. 29A) was recorded at 3:20 PM, and the victim was medically examined by 6:30 PM. The amicus curiae highlighted a crucial finding in the MLC, which noted “redness on victim’s labia minora.” She emphasized that the victim had consistently narrated the sequence of events and correctly identified the appellant. Citing Supreme Court precedents, she argued that the “testimony of the child victim inspires confidence and no corroboration is required.”
Court’s Analysis and Findings
Justice Ohri began the analysis by affirming the trial court’s finding that the victim was a ‘Child’ under Section 2(d) of the POCSO Act, as her age of 7 was not contested. The Court noted the consistency in the victim’s statements—from the initial complaint (rukka), to her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., and finally her deposition in court.
During her in-court testimony, after identifying the appellant, the victim stated: “MAIN FAVICOL LENE ISKI DUKAAN PAR GAYI THI PHIR MENE KAHA UNCLE FAVICOL DE DO PHIR USNE MUJHE GODI MEIN BITHA KE MERE DONO GAAL CHOOSE PHIR USNE MERI SUSU KE UNDAR HAATH DAALA… PHIR MERI MUMMY NE POLICE KO BULA LIYA.” (I went to his shop to get Fevicol… then he made me sit on his lap and sucked both my cheeks then he put his hand inside my ‘susu’… then my mother called the police.)
The Court addressed the appellant’s procedural grievances, deeming the contention of prejudice during cross-examination “specious.” It was noted that the appellant’s subsequent application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. to recall the victim’s mother was allowed, and she was cross-examined again on 06.03.2018.
On the core issue of relying on the sole testimony of a child victim, the Court cited landmark Supreme Court judgments, including State of Punjab Vs. Gurmit Singh, which established that the evidence of a victim of sexual assault is sufficient for conviction and does not require corroboration unless there are compelling reasons.
The Court found the testimony of the defence witnesses unconvincing, stating it “in no manner impinge on the truthfulness or the genuineness of the child victim and the mother.” It concluded that the victim’s testimony was further strengthened by her mother’s deposition and the MLC finding of redness on her labia minora.
Interestingly, the High Court disagreed with the trial court’s reasoning for acquitting the appellant of the more serious offence under Section 6 of the POCSO Act (penetrative sexual assault). The trial court had interpreted the child’s statement as an “exaggeration.” However, Justice Ohri observed, “In the rukka, it can be seen that the appellant has used the word ‘susu’ to mean vagina and has used the word ‘underwear’ separately… The child victim has never used the two words interchangeably.” Citing Ranjit Hazarika vs. State of Assam, the judgment reiterated that “No injuries on private parts or hymen being intact do not belie the child victim’s testimony.”
The Final Decision
Despite disagreeing with the trial court’s reasoning for acquittal under Section 6, the High Court held that it could not convict the appellant for that offence. The judgment explained that since the appeal was preferred only by the accused and not the State, the court’s power was limited by Section 386(b)(iii) of the Cr.P.C. Citing the Supreme Court’s decision in Nagarajan v State of Tamil Nadu, the court held that it could not “alter the nature or the extent… of the sentence, but not so as to enhance the same.”
Ultimately, the appeal was dismissed, and the conviction was upheld. The Court ordered, “The appellant is directed to be taken in custody to serve the remaining part of his sentence. His bail bonds are cancelled and sureties discharged.” The judgment concluded with an appreciation for the “valuable assistance” rendered by amicus curiae Ms. Urvi Kuthiala.
