The Delhi High Court has reaffirmed that in cases under the POCSO Act, a conviction cannot rest solely on the testimony of the victim if material inconsistencies, contradictions, or surrounding circumstances cast reasonable doubt on its veracity. This judgment underscores the necessity of judicial caution when the prosecution’s case hinges entirely on a single witness, even in sensitive sexual offence cases.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The respondent, Fahimuddin @ Fahim, was charged with sexual assault of a minor girl aged 17 years under Section 376 IPC and Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. The alleged incident occurred on 17.05.2013 at approximately 06:30 AM in House No. 472, Gali No. 21, Jafrabad, Delhi. The victim claimed that while sleeping on the first floor of the house, the respondent - her uncle’s son and a co-resident - entered her room, sat between her legs, and touched her private parts before fleeing. She reported the incident to her mother the same day and filed a complaint at Police Station Jafrabad on 18.05.2013.
Key Facts
- The victim was 17 years old at the time of the alleged incident.
- The house was occupied by 13 - 14 family members across two rooms: one by the victim’s family (parents and brother), the other by the respondent’s family.
- The victim admitted during cross-examination that there was no first floor in the house, contradicting her initial complaint.
- A longstanding property dispute existed between the victim’s father and the respondent’s father.
- The victim’s mother, who was allegedly the first person informed of the incident, was not examined as a witness.
- The victim refused an internal medical examination.
- Her statement under Section 164 CrPC was recorded on 20.05.2013.
- The police site plan (prepared by PW-9) was drawn without visiting the actual premises and contained contradictions regarding the house’s structure.
- The respondent claimed he was falsely implicated to pressure his family into vacating the premises.
Procedural History
- 17.05.2013: Alleged incident occurred.
- 18.05.2013: Victim and mother filed complaint at PS Jafrabad; FIR No. 141/13 registered.
- 20.05.2013: Victim’s statement recorded under Section 164 CrPC (Ex.PW1/B).
- 04.02.2015: Charges framed under Section 376 IPC and Section 4 POCSO.
- 23.02.2018: Respondent’s statement recorded under Section 313 CrPC.
- 26.09.2019: Trial Court acquitted the respondent, holding prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
- 16.02.2026: Appeal heard and reserved by Delhi High Court.
- 16.03.2026: Judgment pronounced dismissing the State’s appeal.
The Parties' Positions
The State contended that the victim’s testimony was consistent across complaint, Section 164 statement, and trial, and that familial disputes alone could not discredit her account. The respondent argued that the victim’s testimony was internally contradictory, uncorroborated, and influenced by a hostile family environment.
Relief Sought
The State sought reversal of the acquittal and conviction of the respondent under Sections 376 IPC and 4 POCSO.
The Legal Issue
Can a conviction under the POCSO Act be sustained solely on the testimony of the victim when that testimony contains material inconsistencies regarding the location of the incident, lacks corroboration, and is set against a backdrop of a bitter family dispute?
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant
The learned Additional Public Prosecutor argued that the victim’s testimony remained consistent throughout - complaint, Section 164 statement, and in-court deposition - and that the Trial Court erred in discounting it merely due to a family dispute. He relied on the principle that in POCSO cases, the victim’s testimony, if credible, is sufficient for conviction, citing Krishan Kumar Malik v. State of Haryana and Rai Sandeep @ Deepu v. State (NCT of Delhi).
For the Respondent
The counsel for the respondent emphasized that the victim admitted there was no first floor in the house, contradicting the alleged scene of the offence. He highlighted the absence of the mother as a witness, the lack of any independent corroboration, and the police’s failure to verify the site. He argued that the inconsistencies, combined with the motive to falsely implicate due to a property dispute, rendered the testimony unreliable.
The Court's Analysis
The Court conducted a meticulous review of the victim’s testimony and the surrounding circumstances. It noted that while the law permits conviction based solely on the testimony of the victim in sexual offence cases, such testimony must inspire absolute confidence and withstand rigorous scrutiny.
"In our considered opinion, the 'sterling witness' should be of a very high quality and calibre whose version should, therefore, be unassailable. The court considering the version of such witness should be in a position to accept it for its face value without any hesitation."
The Court applied this standard from Rai Sandeep @ Deepu and found that the victim’s testimony failed to meet it. The contradiction regarding the existence of a first floor was not a minor discrepancy but a fundamental flaw undermining the very locus of the alleged offence. The absence of the mother as a witness, the lack of any medical or forensic evidence, and the police’s failure to investigate the property dispute further eroded the prosecution’s case.
The Court also noted that the site plan prepared by PW-9 was based on hearsay and not personal inspection, rendering it legally worthless. The fact that no other family member witnessed the incident, despite the house being densely occupied, raised further doubt.
The Court concluded that the prosecution had not established the charge beyond reasonable doubt. The benefit of doubt must accrue to the accused, even in cases involving minors, when the evidence is riddled with inconsistencies.
The Verdict
The State’s appeal was dismissed. The acquittal of the respondent by the Trial Court was upheld. The bail bonds of the respondent were cancelled and his surety discharged. No monetary relief or sentence was imposed, as the conviction was not sustained.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Victim Testimony Must Be Unassailable
- Practitioners must rigorously test the consistency of a victim’s account across all stages - complaint, Section 164 statement, and trial - especially when no other evidence exists.
- Inconsistencies regarding the location, timing, or sequence of events cannot be treated as minor; they may fatally undermine the prosecution’s case.
Corroboration Remains Critical Even in POCSO Cases
- While corroboration is not mandatory, its absence becomes fatal when the victim’s testimony contains contradictions.
- Courts will scrutinize the plausibility of the narrative in light of the physical environment and household dynamics.
Familial Disputes Are Not Dismissed as Irrelevant
- A history of conflict between families must be evaluated as a potential motive for false implication, particularly when the victim’s account is otherwise unsupported.
- Prosecutors must proactively investigate and address such disputes through evidence, not merely argue their irrelevance.
Police Evidence Must Be Reliable
- Site plans and investigative reports must be based on firsthand inspection; reliance on hearsay or unverified information renders them inadmissible as substantive evidence.
- Failure to document or investigate background disputes weakens the prosecution’s credibility.
