The Delhi High Court overturned a life-sentence conviction for aggravated sexual assault, holding that a child victim’s testimony, marred by contradictions and unsupported by forensic evidence, cannot alone sustain a conviction under the IPC and POCSO Act.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The appellant, identified only as P (identity redacted), was convicted under Sections 376AB, 341, 323 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act for allegedly assaulting a girl aged about ten years near a public toilet at Hoti Camp, Rangpuri Pahari, New Delhi.
Key Facts
- 22 August 2018: Incident alleged to have occurred at about 8:30 PM; victim was pushed into a pit, blindfolded and sexually assaulted.
- 23 August 2018: FIR No. 440/2018 registered at PS-Vasant Kunj (South) for offences under IPC 376 and POCSO 6.
- 24 August 2018: Information received (DD No. 14 A) that the appellant had been arrested in another case (FIR 441/2018) for offences under Sections 363/365 IPC; during custody he allegedly confessed to the present offence.
- 24 August 2018: Further investigation and a disclosure statement recorded.
- 16 April 2019: Trial Court framed charges under Sections 341, 363, 365, 366, 376AB, 323 IPC and Section 6 POCSO; appellant pleaded not guilty.
- Trial evidence: Six prosecution witnesses, medical examination report showing extensive injuries, and the sole testimony of the child victim (PW-1).
- Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) report (Ex.P-29): Semen DNA from the victim’s slides did not match the appellant’s blood sample.
- 24 September 2025: Appellant sentenced to life imprisonment, six months rigorous imprisonment, and additional short terms, with fines of Rs 5,000, Rs 500 and Rs 100 respectively.
- 19 August 2026: Present appeal decided.
Procedural History
- 23 August 2018: Appellant arrested in connection with FIR 441/2018 (363/365 IPC).
- 23 August 2018: FIR 440/2018 lodged for sexual assault.
- 16 April 2019: Charges framed by Trial Court.
- 4 September 2025: Trial Court delivered judgment convicting appellant.
- 24 September 2025: Sentence pronounced.
- 19 August 2026: Appeal filed; judgment delivered by a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court.
Parties' Positions
- Appellant: Contended that the child’s testimony was contradictory, that identification was impossible in darkness, that the appellant was named only through a confession made while in police custody for another case, and that DNA evidence excluded him.
- State (Respondent): Asserted that the child’s testimony was reliable, corroborated by medical findings and the victim’s identification of the appellant on a screen, and that the conviction was justified.
Relief Sought
The appellant sought quashing of the conviction and sentence, discharge of bail and surety bonds, and immediate release.
The Legal Issue
Whether a conviction for aggravated sexual assault under Section 376AB IPC and Section 6 POCSO Act can be sustained solely on the testimony of a child victim when the testimony exhibits material contradictions, lacks corroborative forensic support, and the accused was not named in the FIR.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant
- The child’s identification of the appellant is unreliable because the incident occurred in darkness; the victim initially denied seeing the face and only later claimed a light was on, a claim unsupported by site plans.
- The appellant was not named in FIR 440/2018 or the medical-legal case (MLC); his involvement emerged only from a confession made while in custody for an unrelated offence, raising suspicion of coercion.
- The FSL report conclusively showed that the appellant’s DNA did not match the semen stains on the victim’s slides.
- The recovery of the blindfold cloth lacked an independent witness and was obtained from an open space, rendering its evidentiary value doubtful.
- Citing State of Madhya Pradesh v. Balveer Singh (2025), the appellant argued that while child testimony need not be corroborated, the court must first rule out tutoring or material discrepancies; the present testimony fails that test.
For the Respondent
- The child’s testimony was detailed, consistent with medical findings of severe injuries, and the victim identified the appellant on a screen, causing a visible perturbation.
- The prosecution highlighted that the victim’s narrative explained the crime without embellishment, satisfying the competence test under Section 118 Evidence Act.
- The medical report and the victim’s identification were presented as sufficient corroboration, rendering the DNA mismatch a non-fatal inconsistency.
- Emphasised that the conviction aligns with the statutory mandate to protect children from sexual offences.
The Court's Analysis
The Court began by reiterating the principles laid down in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Balveer Singh (2025), which affirm that a child witness is competent and that no statutory requirement mandates corroboration, but the trial court must ensure the witness is not tutored and that the testimony is free of material contradictions.
"The Evidence Act does not prescribe any minimum age for a witness, and as such a child witness is a competent witness and his or her evidence cannot be rejected outrightly."
The Court examined the preliminary examination under Section 118 Evidence Act and found that the trial court had recorded the requisite opinion that the child understood the duty of truth-telling. However, the Court noted several inconsistencies:
- The victim first denied seeing the assailant’s face in darkness, later altered her statement to acknowledge a light and a positive identification, a change not supported by any lamp-post or illumination on the site plans.
- The forensic DNA analysis (Ex.P-29) categorically excluded the appellant’s blood sample from matching the semen stains, undermining the prosecution’s claim of biological linkage.
- The blindfold cloth was recovered from an open area without any independent witness, and the seizure memo failed to establish a chain of custody.
- The appellant’s name was absent from both the FIR and the MLC; it surfaced only through a confession made while he was already in police custody for a separate offence, raising the possibility of pressure or scapegoating.
Applying the Balveer Singh test, the Court held that the contradictions regarding identification, the lack of corroborative forensic evidence, and the procedural anomalies collectively created a reasonable doubt. The Court emphasized that while child testimony can form the sole basis of conviction, it must inspire confidence and be free from material discrepancies. Here, the inconsistencies were sufficient to erode that confidence.
Consequently, the Court concluded that the conviction could not be safely sustained. The appellate court therefore set aside the impugned judgment and the sentencing order.
The Verdict
The appeal succeeded. The Delhi High Court set aside the conviction dated 4 September 2025 and the sentence dated 24 September 2025. The appellant was acquitted of all charges under Sections 376AB, 341, 323 IPC and Section 6 POCSO Act. The bail bond and surety bond were discharged, and the appellant was ordered to be released forthwith. The order was to be communicated to the Jail Superintendent for compliance and uploaded on the Court’s website.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Reliance on Child Testimony Requires Rigorous Scrutiny
- Courts must conduct a detailed preliminary examination under Section 118 Evidence Act to assess the child’s competence.
- Any material contradiction or change in the child’s narrative, especially concerning identification, must be examined against physical evidence such as site plans or lighting conditions.
- Practitioners should be prepared to challenge identification claims that lack corroborative support.
Forensic Corroboration Gains Heightened Importance
- DNA and other forensic reports can decisively influence the credibility of the prosecution’s case.
- A mismatch between the accused’s DNA and biological stains, as highlighted in this judgment, can create reasonable doubt even when the victim’s testimony is detailed.
- Lawyers should ensure that forensic evidence is obtained, preserved, and presented promptly.
Procedural Safeguards Against Misidentification
- The absence of the accused’s name in the FIR or MLC weakens the prosecution’s case; counsel should verify that the charge sheet correctly identifies the accused.
- Confessions made while the accused is in custody for unrelated offences are subject to scrutiny for voluntariness and potential coercion.
- When evidence is obtained from open spaces or without independent witnesses, its admissibility may be challenged.
Practical Takeaways
- Anticipate and pre-empt challenges to child testimony by securing contemporaneous medical reports and corroborative material.
- Request detailed forensic analysis early; a negative DNA match can be a decisive defense tool.
- Scrutinize the charge sheet for accurate naming; any discrepancy can be a ground for appeal.
- Prepare to argue the absence of corroboration where the child’s testimony shows inconsistencies.
