The Delhi High Court has set aside a 2013 trial court judgment that acquitted a man, Inderpal, of rape charges, finding the lower court’s conclusions “palpably erroneous” and “perverse.” A Division Bench of Justice Dinesh Mehta and Justice Vimal Kumar Yadav, in an appeal filed by the State (CRL.A. 1039/2014), convicted the respondent-accused under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
The High Court held that the trial court failed to appreciate the evidence of the seven-year-old victim in the correct perspective, showing “least regard to the nature of the offence and the victim’s mental state on account of tender age and the trauma.”
Background of the Case
The case originated from an incident on September 14, 2011, when the prosecutrix, ‘M’, a minor, informed her mother (PW-6), that a person residing near their house had held her, carried her to his room, undressed her, and sexually assaulted her. The mother observed blood spots on the victim’s salwar and noted that her private part had turned red and had some blood.
The following day, September 15, 2011, the victim pointed out the accused to her mother while he was on his bicycle, stating he was the “uncle who had taken her to his room and did the wrong.” The accused was immediately apprehended by the mother (PW-6) and her uncle, Gopal, and handed over to the police.
Medical examinations of both the victim and the accused were conducted. The victim’s statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) was also recorded. After completing the investigation, police filed a charge-sheet against the accused for the offence under Section 376 of the IPC.
Trial Court’s Acquittal
On July 16, 2013, the learned Additional Sessions Judge-01 (West), Delhi, acquitted the accused, holding that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The trial court’s reasons for acquittal included:
- The prosecutrix (PW-3) stated in court that the uncle “laid his body upon my body” and “except that he did nothing,” which the trial court found did not constitute ‘sexual assault’.
- A finding that the prosecutrix was “tutored,” based on her deposition during cross-examination that she was “asked by her mother to say that uncle laid upon her.”
- A discrepancy between her Section 164 Cr.P.C. statement (where she alleged penetration) and her court statement (which did not state facts of actual assault).
- The victim’s statement in the opening part of her cross-examination that she “did not know the uncle who had taken her from the street.”
- The FSL report found no blood on the salwar and vaginal smear.
- The Medico-Legal Report (MLC), which noted “hymen was found to be torn with red and inflamed margins,” was discarded by the trial court.
- The landlady (PW-9), considered a material witness, did not support the prosecution’s case.
Arguments Before the High Court
Mr. Aman Usman, learned Additional Public Prosecutor (APP) for the State, contended that the trial court “showed scant regard to the tender age of the victim.” He argued that the trial court wrongly picked the victim’s statement “I do not know the person standing in the dock” out of context, ignoring the latter part where she identified him. The APP highlighted that the victim had clearly deposed that the accused gave her Rs. 20 and warned her “not to tell about the occurrence to her parents, lest she would be beaten.”
The State further argued that the omission by the seven-year-old victim to state the “remaining part of the actual sexual assault” in her court statement should not have been fatal, especially when the medical evidence, including the MLC and the testimony of Dr. Supriya (PW-5), “clearly reported that – ‘hymen of the patient was found torn with red and inflamed margins’.”
Learned counsel for the respondent-accused argued that the case was not under the POCSO Act, 2012, and therefore the prosecution had to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt, which it failed to do. The defence highlighted the lack of a Test Identification Parade, alleged enmity between the accused and the victim’s mother (PW-6) which the father (PW-7) had admitted, and the fact that the doctors had not reported “sexual assault,” only a torn hymen.
High Court’s Analysis and Findings
The High Court, in its judgment penned by Justice Dinesh Mehta, found that the trial court had “not appreciated the oral and ocular evidence in correct perspective.” The bench noted that the trial court itself had recorded a memorandum observing the child’s fragile mental state, where she could not state her teacher’s name or her subjects, and had also made a specific “Court Observation” that the victim “refused to see towards the accused, to my view on account of fear and apprehension from the accused.”
In light of this, the High Court observed, “having made such observation, it was imperative for the trial court to remain considerate towards her oral deposition and exhibit desired degree of sensitivity.”
The Court held that the victim’s statement that the accused “pulled off my kachhi [underwear], laid me on the floor and thereafter laid his body upon my body,” read in conjunction with the medical report, was “enough to conclude that she was subjected to sexual assault.”
Addressing the medical evidence, the judgment stated, “Ruptured hymen and red and inflammation of the margins of the private part cannot be a coincidence- it had to be a consequence of some external force which she suffered when the accused laid upon the hapless undressed victim.”
The bench found that the trial court “completely overlooked the medical evidence.” It also gave weight to the victim’s Section 164 Cr.P.C. statement, which detailed the act of penetration, noting that in the “peculiar facts of the case,” the victim’s omission to aver the actual assault in court “cannot be said to be a discrepancy. It was at the best an omission.”
The High Court cited the Supreme Court’s judgment in State of Rajasthan v. Chatra (2025) 8 SCC 613, where the apex court observed that a child victim’s silence could be the result of trauma and that other corroborating evidence must be considered.
On the issue of the victim being tutored, the High Court cited State of Madhya Pradesh v. Balveer Singh (2025) 8 SCC 545, finding that “minor omissions” cannot by themselves affect the credibility of a child witness who “was able to describe in detail how the events unfolded.” The bench concluded, “The Trial Court has wrongly taken minor omission of the minor victim to be discrepancy.”
Declaring the trial court’s findings “perverse,” the High Court held that the “only possible view was to conclude the guilt of the accused.”
Decision
The High Court allowed the State’s appeal, quashing and setting aside the trial court’s judgment of acquittal dated 16.07.2013.
The respondent-accused, Inderpal, was convicted for the offence under Section 376 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo ten years of imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 20,000/-. In default of fine payment, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for an additional two months. The period of sentence already undergone by the accused is to be reduced from the 10-year term.
The concerned SHO was directed to take the accused, who was on bail, into custody with immediate effect.
