The Delhi High Court has upheld the conviction and two-year rigorous imprisonment of a man in a 2010 child sexual assault case, ruling that the victim’s testimony remained credible despite her mother and grandmother turning hostile during the trial.
In an order issued on July 16, Justice Vimal Kumar Yadav rejected the convict’s appeal against his two-year prison sentence and a Rs 5,000 fine. The court observed that the family’s extreme poverty and socio-economic vulnerability led the elder relatives to compromise their support for the prosecution, but that the child’s independent statements established the truth of the offense.
Victim Testimony Upheld Amid Socio-Economic Pressure
The court noted that the survivor, who was seven years old at the time of the incident, provided a truthful account of the assault. Although the child initially gave statements influenced by her mother, she reaffirmed the accuracy of the original account she had delivered before a magistrate.
Justice Yadav remarked that young age, gender, and economic distress create heightened susceptibility to exploitation and social pressure. The bench highlighted that individuals positioned lower on the socio-economic ladder often face circumstances that undermine their ability to seek justice. Despite these adverse conditions and maternal influence, the court stated that an objective evaluation of the overall record clearly brought the truth to light.
Legal Arguments and Procedural Background
The case originated from an August 30, 2010 incident in which the seven-year-old girl was sexually assaulted on a terrace near a servant quarter. Law enforcement subsequently filed a chargesheet alleging an attempt to commit rape under the Indian Penal Code, leading to the trial court’s guilty verdict and two-year sentence.
During the appeal, defense advocate M.K. Khanna argued that the prosecution’s case was severely compromised because the victim’s mother and grandmother failed to support the allegations. Khanna contended that the evidence was insufficient to sustain a conviction for an attempt to commit rape and suggested the acts amounted to a lesser offense.
Opposing the appeal, Additional Public Prosecutor Satinder Singh Bawa argued that court findings must rely on the full evidentiary picture rather than isolated statements. Bawa pointed out that the young survivor’s testimony, combined with statements made by the appellant under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, provided a solid foundation to maintain the conviction.
Observations on Vulnerability and Judicial Evaluation
Addressing the broader context of the case, the bench observed that systemic inequalities and disadvantages persist for economically weaker groups despite constitutional protections. The judge noted that demanding a child to repeatedly recount traumatic events causes further distress, which was compounded in this case by maternal interference.
Ultimately, the High Court concluded that the child’s testimony, evaluated alongside the remaining material evidence and the accused’s statements, was fully sufficient to sustain the conviction.
