The Delhi High Court dismissed an appeal under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, upholding the conviction of a school teacher for sexual assault of a minor under Sections 354, 354A IPC and Section 10 POCSO, and affirming the statutory presumption under Section 29 POCSO that a credible child testimony can alone sustain conviction.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The appellant, Netram Kumar, a drawing teacher at a government school, was charged with sexual assault of a minor student. The prosecution alleged that between February 2015 and July 2016 the appellant engaged in inappropriate physical conduct with the victim within school premises, including the library and staff room. The victim, a minor girl aged about 12, filed a complaint on 11.08.2016, leading to FIR No. 678/2016.
Key Facts
- 11.08.2016: Complaint lodged by the minor student (prosecutrix) alleging sexual misconduct by the appellant.
- 12.08.2016: Appellant arrested and medically examined.
- 17.08.2016: Statement of the prosecutrix recorded under Section 164 CrPC.
- 24.07.2018: Sessions Court took cognizance of offences under Sections 354, 354A IPC and Section 10 POCSO.
- 17.07.2019: Trial Court found prima facie case against appellant.
- 19.11.2019: Charges framed against appellant under Sections 354, 354A IPC and Section 10 POCSO.
- 02.12.2019: Charge under Section 21 POCSO framed against co-accused Asha Kumari (principal).
- 21.03.2024: Prosecution evidence closed; appellant’s statement under Section 313 recorded.
- 16.04.2026: Trial Court convicted appellant on all charges.
- 15.05.2026: Sentence of five years rigorous imprisonment, fine of Rs.2,000 and one month simple imprisonment in default.
- 12.08.2016 - 26.08.2016: Appellant’s custody for 15 days.
- 16.04.2026 - 19.04.2026: Additional custody for 4 days, set off under Section 428 CrPC.
- Compensation: Rs.3,00,000 ordered to be paid by DLSA, Shahdara, to the victim under Delhi Victim Compensation Scheme.
Procedural History
- 12.08.2016: Arrest of Netram Kumar.
- 24.07.2018: Sessions Case No. 374/2018 registered.
- 17.07.2019: Prima facie finding by Trial Court.
- 19.11.2019: Charges framed.
- 02.12.2019: Charge against co-accused Asha Kumari.
- 21.03.2024: Prosecution evidence closed.
- 16.04.2026: Conviction judgment.
- 15.05.2026: Sentencing order.
- 12.08.2026: Appeal filed under Section 415 read with Section 528 BNSS (CRL.A. 573/2026 & CRL.M.(BAIL) 1165/2026).
- 12.08.2026: Judgment delivered by Hon'ble Ms. Justice Madhu Jain.
Relief Sought
The appellant sought quashing of the conviction and sentence, arguing that the testimony of the minor was unreliable, that statutory presumption under Section 29 POCSO was wrongly applied, and that medical/age factors warranted leniency.
The Legal Issue
Whether a conviction for sexual assault of a minor under the POCSO Act can be sustained solely on the testimony of the child victim without independent corroboration, and whether the statutory presumption under Section 29 POCSO may be invoked when the prosecution has established the foundational facts.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant
- The appellant contended that the prosecutrix’s testimony was inconsistent regarding date, month and place of the alleged incidents, rendering it unreliable.
- Argued that the investigation failed to collect school attendance records and other teachers’ statements, creating material gaps.
- Asserted that the trial court misapplied the presumption under Section 29 POCSO, which should arise only after foundational facts are proved.
- Highlighted appellant’s advanced age (65) and serious health conditions, seeking mitigation.
- Relied on Rai Sandeep alias Deepu v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2012) 8 SCC 21, emphasizing the need for a “sterling” witness.
For the Respondent
- The State maintained that the prosecutrix’s testimony was consistent on material particulars and corroborated by her elder sister (PW-6) and father (PW-7).
- Stated that the trial court correctly attracted the presumption under Section 29 after establishing foundational facts.
- Emphasised that the prosecution proved the essential elements of the offences beyond reasonable doubt.
- Cited State (NCT of Delhi) v. Pankaj Chaudhary (2019) 11 SCC 575, affirming that a reliable child testimony alone can sustain conviction.
The Court's Analysis
The Court first clarified that the statutory presumption under Section 29 POCSO is rebuttable and can be invoked only after the prosecution establishes the foundational facts - namely the age of the victim, the nature of the alleged conduct, and the identity of the accused. The Court observed that the trial court had not mechanically applied the presumption; it first examined the victim’s statement, the corroborative testimony of PW-6 and PW-7, and the surrounding circumstances before invoking the presumption.
"It is now well-settled principle of law that conviction can be sustained on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix if it inspires confidence."
The Court rejected the appellant’s claim of inconsistency, noting that variations in peripheral details such as the exact date or the specific room (library versus staff room) do not affect the core allegation. The Court held that the victim’s account of being taken into a room, being touched, and her subsequent disclosure to parents and school authorities was consistent on material particulars and was supported by the sister’s testimony and the father’s corroboration.
Regarding the alleged lack of documentary evidence, the Court stated that the law does not prescribe a mandatory requirement of corroboration in sexual offence cases; the credibility of the child witness is the decisive factor. The Court also dismissed the reliance on Rai Sandeep by emphasizing that the “sterling witness” standard is fact-specific and the present testimony, though not flawless, did not suffer from material infirmities that would render it unsafe.
The Court further addressed the appellant’s health and age, concluding that while compassionate, these factors do not outweigh the gravity of the offence nor the statutory duty of a teacher to protect a child. Consequently, the sentencing of five years rigorous imprisonment, a fine of Rs.2,000, and the compensation of Rs.3,00,000 to the victim were upheld.
The Verdict
The appeal is dismissed. The conviction of Netram Kumar under Sections 354, 354A IPC and Section 10 POCSO, and the conviction of co-accused Asha Kumari under Section 21(2) POCSO, are affirmed. The sentence of five years rigorous imprisonment, fine of Rs.2,000 (with one month simple imprisonment in default), and compensation of Rs.3,00,000 payable by DLSA, Shahdara, to the victim are upheld. All pending applications are disposed of.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Child Testimony Can Stand Alone
- Courts will treat a child’s testimony as sufficient where it is consistent on material facts and inspires confidence, even without medical or documentary corroboration.
- Practitioners must ensure thorough cross-examination to expose any material contradictions; peripheral inconsistencies are unlikely to defeat the case.
Section 29 POCSO Presumption Is Rebuttable, Not Automatic
- The presumption can be invoked only after the prosecution establishes foundational facts; it remains rebuttable by the accused.
- Defence counsel should focus on discrediting the foundational facts rather than merely pointing out minor discrepancies.
Health and Age Do Not Override Statutory Duty
- While mitigating factors such as advanced age or health issues may be raised, they do not ordinarily alter the conviction or sentencing in serious sexual offences against minors.
- Lawyers should prepare medical evidence for mitigation but not rely on it to overturn a conviction.
Takeaways for practitioners:
- Prioritize securing consistent, detailed statements from child victims and corroborative family testimony.
- Anticipate that courts will apply Section 29 POCSO only after foundational facts are proved.
- Prepare comprehensive medical and humanitarian submissions, but recognize their limited impact on the core conviction.
