The Delhi High Court has upheld the conviction of an appellant for the aggravated sexual assault of a six-year-old minor but modified the sentence from life imprisonment to rigorous imprisonment for 10 years. The Division Bench comprising Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Madhu Jain observed that while the guilt of the accused was established beyond reasonable doubt, mitigating factors including family hardship and the fact that the offence occurred prior to the 2019 amendment to the POCSO Act warranted a reduction in the sentence.
Background of the Case
The appeal, filed under Section 415(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), challenged the judgment of conviction dated March 21, 2025, and the order on sentence dated March 25, 2025, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ-06, POCSO Act), South East, Saket Court, Delhi.
The case originated from FIR No. 101/2017 registered at Police Station Govind Puri. The prosecution alleged that on March 13, 2017, the appellant kidnapped the minor prosecutrix, who was playing in a park, took her to a house, and inserted his finger into her private parts. The victim was found bleeding and was subsequently operated on for a “3rd degree perineal tear.” The appellant was convicted by the Trial Court under Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO Act), Section 376(2)(i) (rape of a minor), Section 363 (kidnapping), and Section 506 (criminal intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). He was sentenced to life imprisonment for the offence under the POCSO Act.
Submissions of the Parties
Counsel for the Appellant, Ms. Supriya Juneja, argued that the case suffered from serious lacunae, primarily raising the plea of mistaken identity. The defense contended that the appellant’s real name was “Pati Ram” and not “Mantram @ Mantra @ Sonu” as alleged, and that he had been falsely implicated by his employer, Sonu Gupta, due to salary disputes. The counsel submitted that the CCTV footage relied upon was blurred and inconclusive. Furthermore, it was argued that the appellant’s refusal to participate in the Test Identification Parade (TIP) was justified as he had allegedly been shown to the victim prior to the identification.
Regarding the sentence, the defense highlighted that the appellant, aged about 40 years, had undergone incarceration of approximately 8 years and 6 months with satisfactory conduct. It was submitted that his family, comprising an 80-year-old bedridden father, a critically ill wife, and five minor children who had discontinued schooling due to financial hardship, was entirely dependent on him.
Conversely, the State, represented by APP Mr. Ritesh Kumar Bahri, argued that the six-year-old prosecutrix had consistently identified the appellant in court. The State emphasized that upon seeing the appellant via video link, the victim “immediately concealed her face in the lap of the support person,” demonstrating visible fear. The State further contended that the appellant had signed court documents, including the charge and his statement under Section 313 CrPC, as “Mantram,” thereby defeating the plea of mistaken identity.
Court’s Analysis and Observations
The High Court rejected the appellant’s defense of mistaken identity. The Bench observed that the victim identified the appellant in court, which is a substantive piece of evidence. The Court noted, “The identity of the assailant is not based upon his name but is based upon his looks/ appearance. The name ‘Mantra’ could have been the correct name or fake name but what is relevant is that the victim identified the accused by his face in the court as the one who has sexually assaulted her.”
The Court drew an adverse inference against the appellant for refusing to participate in the TIP, noting there was no evidence to support the claim that he had been shown to the victim at the police station. Furthermore, the Court found that the appellant had signed all court documents as “Mantram” in Hindi, which “clearly establishes his true identity and falsifies his defence of mistaken identity.”
Regarding the CCTV footage, the Court held that the appellant failed to explain his presence with the prosecutrix as seen in the footage, stating, “This non-explanation is an additional ground which confirms the conviction of the appellant.”
While upholding the conviction, the Court considered the quantum of the sentence. The Bench referred to the Supreme Court judgment in Deepankar Tikedar v. State of Chhatisgarh, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2636, where a life sentence under Section 6 of the POCSO Act was modified to a fixed term. The High Court noted that the incident occurred in 2017, prior to the 2019 amendment to the POCSO Act, when the minimum sentence was 10 years.
The Court observed: “Taking into consideration the mitigating circumstances, the period of incarceration already undergone by the appellant, his satisfactory conduct in jail, the fact that the offence occurred prior to the 2019 amendment, and the grave hardship being faced by his family which is entirely dependent on him, this Court is of the view that the ends of justice would be met if the sentence is modified.”
Decision
The High Court partly allowed the appeal concerning the sentence. While the conviction under Sections 363 IPC, 506 IPC, 376(2)(i) IPC, and Section 6 of the POCSO Act was upheld, the sentence of life imprisonment was modified to Rigorous Imprisonment for 10 years. The conviction and other sentences were maintained.
Case Details:
- Case Title: Mantram @ Mantra @ Sonu v. State of NCT of Delhi
- Case Number: CRL.A. 601/2025 & CRL.M. (BAIL) 2499/2025
- Coram: Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Madhu Jain
