The Delhi High Court has upheld the conviction of two men for gang penetrative sexual assault and unnatural offences against a minor boy, while modifying their sentence from 15 years to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment. The Court observed that the ocular testimony of the victim was reliable and sufficiently corroborated by medical evidence, even as it noted “clear dereliction of duty” by the Investigating Officer regarding the handling of biological samples.
Justice Chandrasekharan Sudha, presiding over the appeals filed under Section 415(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), affirmed the findings of the trial court regarding the guilt of Navdeep @ Sonu (A2) and Krishan (A1). However, the Court reduced the substantive sentence, citing Supreme Court guidelines and the age of the appellants at the time of the incident.
Background of the Case
The prosecution’s case originated from an incident reported on June 23, 2017. The victim (PW1), a minor who played kabaddi at Rajiv Gandhi Stadium, Bawana, alleged that the appellants, who were his seniors, had been subjecting him to repeated sexual assault for nearly a year. He claimed they blackmailed him using a recorded obscene video.
On the day of the final incident, the appellants allegedly took him to a room where Navdeep (A2) committed penetrative sexual assault while Krishan (A1) waited outside for his turn. The victim began to cry in pain, leading the appellants to let him go. Upon returning home, his mother (PW2) noticed a bruise on his cheek and, after questioning him, reported the matter to the police.
Arguments of the Parties
Counsel for the appellants argued that the prosecution failed to recover the alleged video used for blackmail, suggesting the entire story was fabricated. They contended that a prior scuffle during kabaddi practice provided a motive for false implication. Furthermore, they pointed out a significant delay in depositing biological samples in the Malkhana and alleged that the Investigating Officer (IO) had tampered with the evidence at the instance of the victim’s mother, who had previously worked at the hospital where the MLC was prepared.
The appellants further highlighted that the medical report (MLC) showed a “normal anal tone,” which they argued contradicted the claim of penetrative assault.
The Additional Public Prosecutor (APP) for the State maintained that the victim’s testimony was consistent and corroborated by his mother and the medical findings. He argued that the injuries noted in the MLC, including “multiple erosions” in the anal canal and a bite mark on the cheek, supported the victim’s account.
Court’s Analysis and Observations
The Court meticulously examined the medical evidence and its relationship with the ocular testimony. Citing Solanki Chimanbhai Ukabhai v. State of Gujarat, the Court noted that medical evidence is primarily corroborative and cannot override reliable ocular testimony unless it completely rules out the possibility of the injuries occurring as alleged.
On the medical findings, the Court observed:
“The absence of severe injuries or the presence of normal anal tone does not by itself rule out the possibility of sexual assault, particularly when the examination reveals other relevant findings such as multiple erosions.”
Regarding the missing video, the Court held that “non-recovery/seizure of video alone cannot be made a ground to disbelieve the entire prosecution case” because the victim’s testimony was found to be “trustworthy and credible.”
The Court, however, expressed dissatisfaction with the investigation. It noted that the presence of A1’s DNA in the victim’s swabs—despite the victim’s statement that only A2 committed the act on that specific day—suggested manipulation.
“In the case on hand, there appears to be clear dereliction of duty by the IO. In his anxiety to prove the case, the IO seems to have manipulated the samples.”
Despite this, the Court applied the principle that “for every wrong or illegality committed by the IO the accused is not liable to be acquitted, if the evidence produced de hors the defective investigation is sufficient to bring home the guilt.”
Addressing the liability of Krishan (A1), who did not personally commit the act on the final day, the Court invoked the Explanation to Section 5(g) of the POCSO Act. It held that since A1 was present in furtherance of common intention, he was deemed to have committed gang penetrative sexual assault.
Decision of the Court
The High Court confirmed the conviction under Section 377 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 6 of the POCSO Act.
On the matter of sentencing, the Court noted that the trial court had imposed a 15-year term. However, referring to the Supreme Court’s judgment in Ravinder Singh v. The State Govt. of NCT of Delhi (2024), the Court observed that the maximum term for the offence at the relevant time (unless life imprisonment was awarded) was 14 years.
“Furthermore, the appellants/ A1 and A2 were only aged 19-20 years at the time of the incident. Hence in the said circumstances, I find that the substantive sentence of rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years would serve the ends of justice.”
The appeals were partly allowed, modifying the sentence from 15 years to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment, with the sentences to run concurrently.
Case Details
- Case Title: Navdeep @ Sonu v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Krishan v. The State (Govt. of NCT) Delhi
- Case Number: CRL.A. 23/2025 and CRL.A. 47/2025
- Bench: Justice Chandrasekharan Sudha
- Date of Judgment: March 24, 2026
