POCSO Act Section 6 | Disproportionate 30-Year Simple Imprisonment Reduced to 15 Years RI; Appellant's Youth, Clean Antecedents & 11-Year Incarceration Weighed : Delhi HC

The Delhi High Court has upheld the conviction of Mohd Anzar Ahmad for kidnapping a 14-year-old girl, confining her for over two months, and subjecting her to repeated penetrative sexual assault resulting in pregnancy, but reduced the sentence from 30 years' simple imprisonment to 15 years' rigorous imprisonment under Section 6 of the POCSO Act as it stood in 2014. The Court affirmed that the victim's testimony was consistent and credible, her age was established by school records, and medical evidence corroborated the pregnancy. The modification brings the sentence in line with the statutory mandate of rigorous imprisonment and the principle of proportionality considering the appellant's age, clean antecedents, and prolonged incarceration since February 2015.

Background & Facts

The Dispute

The appellant, Mohd Anzar Ahmad, a married man aged approximately 25 at the time of the offence, was convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, South East District, Saket Courts, Delhi, for offences under Sections 363 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. The case arose from the disappearance of a minor girl, Ms. M, on 05.12.2014, her recovery from Akbarpur, Uttar Pradesh, on 13.02.2015, and the subsequent medical confirmation of her pregnancy and medical termination.

Key Facts

• 05.12.2014: Victim Ms. M, aged 14 years 4 months (date of birth 10.07.2000 per school records), left for school at 07:00 AM but did not return. Her father, Sh. J, lodged a complaint at P.S. Jaitpur, Delhi; FIR No. 902/2014 registered under Section 363 IPC.
• 13.02.2015: Victim recovered from a jhuggi in Akbarpur, UP, in the presence of her father and police. Appellant apprehended at Akbarpur railway station. Victim found to be approximately two months pregnant.
• 20.02.2015: Medical termination of pregnancy (MTP) conducted at AIIMS with victim's consent.
• 07.10.2015: Trial Court framed charges under Sections 363, 506 IPC and Section 6 POCSO Act. Accused pleaded not guilty.
• Prosecution evidence: 14 witnesses examined including victim (PW-1), her parents (PW-2, PW-3), school principal (PW-4), medical personnel (PW-5, PW-6, PW-9, PW-10), investigating officers (PW-8, PW-11, PW-13), and appellant's then-wife Rubina Begum (PW-12, turned hostile).
• Defence: Appellant claimed consensual relationship, alleged victim was born in 1997 (major), and stated they had married and lived together.
• 03.08.2024: Trial Court convicted appellant, holding prosecution proved case beyond reasonable doubt.
• 15.01.2025: Trial Court sentenced appellant to (a) 5 years SI + Rs.20,000 fine (Sec 363 IPC), (b) 2 years SI (Sec 506 IPC), (c) 30 years SI + Rs.25,000 fine (Sec 6 POCSO), all concurrent; default 30 days SI for fine non-payment.
• Appellant in judicial custody since 13.02.2015.

Procedural History

• 05.12.2014: FIR No. 902/2014 registered at P.S. Jaitpur, Delhi under Section 363 IPC.
• 13.02.2015: Victim recovered from Akbarpur, UP; appellant arrested; both brought to Delhi.
• 20.02.2015: MTP conducted at AIIMS.
• 07.10.2015: Charges framed by Trial Court.
• 03.08.2024: Judgment of conviction passed by learned ASJ, South East District, Saket Courts.
• 15.01.2025: Order on sentence passed.
• Present appeal: CRL.A. 276/2025 & CRL.M.(BAIL) 504/2025 filed before Delhi High Court challenging conviction and sentence.
• 14.10.2026: Arguments reserved.
• 02.11.2026: Judgment delivered by Justice Madhu Jain.

Relief Sought

The appellant sought setting aside of the conviction and sentence, arguing material inconsistencies in prosecution evidence, unreliable recovery procedure, inconclusive FSL report, and that the victim accompanied him voluntarily. The State and victim's counsel sought confirmation of conviction and sentence.

The Legal Issue

The central questions were: (1) Whether the prosecution established beyond reasonable doubt that the victim was below eighteen years of age on 05.12.2014 and that the appellant abducted her and subjected her to aggravated penetrative sexual assault; (2) Whether the victim's testimony, medical evidence, and recovery circumstances sufficiently corroborated the prosecution case despite investigative lapses and an inconclusive FSL report; (3) Whether the sentence of 30 years' simple imprisonment under Section 6 POCSO Act (as it stood in 2014) was proportionate and statutorily compliant.

Arguments Presented

For the Appellant

Learned counsel contended that the prosecution case suffered from material inconsistencies regarding the circumstances of the victim leaving home, places of confinement, and manner of recovery. The investigating officer failed to adequately verify the recovery location; discrepancies between references to Akbarpur and Faizabad cast doubt. PW-8 could not recall the railway station name and admitted no departure entry was made. No independent public witness or local police were associated with recovery; no separate recovery memo prepared. PW-3's admission that the victim initially refused to return home until a tabeez was removed supported voluntary accompaniment. Absence of DNA evidence connecting appellant to pregnancy and inconclusive FSL report failed to corroborate sexual assault. School records were not independently verified. Presumptions under Sections 29 and 30 POCSO Act could not be invoked without reliable foundational evidence.

For the Respondent

Learned counsel for victim (R-2) submitted that the victim's testimony was consistent on material aspects and accepted by the Trial Court after full appreciation. The victim's pregnancy and MTP corroborated sexual intercourse during the relevant period. Discrepancies in recovery location and inconclusive DNA did not discredit the victim's testimony. Victim's age was established by school records and PW-4's testimony; plea of consent is unavailable in law for a minor under POCSO. The State supported the sentence, citing the victim's age, duration of exploitation, pregnancy, and MTP as aggravating factors warranting no reduction.

The Court's Analysis

Age of the Victim

The Court examined the school record produced by PW-4 (retired Principal), which showed the victim's date of birth as 10.07.2000 and admission to Class I on 18.07.2007. The affidavit bearing the mother's thumb impression/signature was part of the school record. The defence did not prove forgery or deliberate misstatement. PW-1 stated she was fifteen at deposition; PW-2 consistently stated she was about fifteen at disappearance. The Court held: "On the basis of the evidence available, this Court, therefore, finds that the prosecution has established that the victim was below eighteen years of age on the date of the incident."

Testimony of the Victim

Relying on Rai Sandeep v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2012) 8 SCC 21 ("sterling witness" concept) and Nirmal Premkumar v. State 2024 SCC OnLine SC 260 (three categories of oral testimony), the Court held that a conviction for sexual offence may rest on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix if cogent, consistent on material particulars, and inspiring confidence. PW-1's testimony, her Section 164 CrPC statement, and evidence of PW-2 and PW-3 revealed a consistent account of the appellant's identity, the manner of abduction, repeated sexual assaults, and prevention from contacting parents. Cross-examination elicited no material contradiction. The suggestion of tutoring was unsubstantiated. The Court found the evidence "retains its consistency on material particulars and inspires confidence."

Medical Evidence and Pregnancy

The ultrasound report (Ex. PW-9/A, PW-9/B) showed a single intrauterine gestational sac with live fetus, cardiac activity, and fetal age of 8 weeks 5 days, consistent with the period of confinement. PW-6 and PW-13 deposed to receiving information about MTP on 20.02.2015. Though MTP documents were not collected due to IO's suspension, the Court held this "does not dislodge the medical evidence establishing the victim's pregnancy or the testimony of PW-6 and PW-13 regarding its subsequent termination." The pregnancy "materially corroborates the victim's account of having been subjected to sexual intercourse during the relevant period."

FSL Report

The FSL report (Ex. Z-1) was inconclusive: alleles from victim's and accused's samples could not be compared due to non-availability of complete DNA profile. The Court held: "The result is inconclusive; it is neither a positive identification of the appellant nor a conclusive exclusion of him... The question of his involvement must, therefore, be determined on the basis of the remaining oral and circumstantial evidence." The FSL report cannot determine whether sexual intercourse was consensual; PW-1 categorically deposed to force, unconsciousness, resistance, beatings, and prevention from contacting parents.

Consent Immaterial Under POCSO

The Court emphasized: "Once the victim is established to have been below eighteen years of age, her alleged consent to sexual intercourse is legally immaterial for the purposes of the POCSO Act. Her willingness, if any, to accompany the appellant cannot, by itself, constitute a defence to the charge of penetrative sexual assault."

Recovery of the Victim

Despite investigative shortcomings (no independent witness, no recovery memo, no woman police official, discrepancies between Akbarpur/Faizabad references), the Court found the factum of recovery established by consistent testimony of PW-1, PW-2, PW-8, and PW-13. PW-1 independently corroborated the place and circumstances. The discrepancies "do not undermine the factum of recovery itself."

Proportionality and Quantum of Sentence

Section 6 POCSO Act (pre-2019 amendment) prescribed rigorous imprisonment for not less than 10 years, extendable to life imprisonment. The 2019 amendment enhanced minimum to 20 years, but in Satauram Mandavi v. State of Chhattisgarh (MANU/SC/0983/2025), the Supreme Court held enhanced punishment cannot apply retrospectively (Article 20(1) Constitution). The Trial Court awarded 30 years' simple imprisonment, but Section 6 mandates rigorous imprisonment. Citing Gopal Singh v. State of Uttarakhand (2013) 7 SCC 545 (proportionality), Vipul Rasikbhai Koli Jankher v. State of Gujarat 2022 SCC OnLine SC 2446 (modification to 15 years considering age, incarceration, reformative object), and Satish Kumar Dhruv v. State of Chhattisgarh 2023 SCC OnLine Chh 3631 (modification to 14 years RI), the Court held the Trial Court did not sufficiently explain why 30 years was warranted. Considering appellant's age (~25 at offence), no prior involvement, and incarceration since 13.02.2015, the Court modified the sentence to 15 years' rigorous imprisonment.

"A sentence of 15 years' rigorous imprisonment falls within the punishment prescribed under Section 6 of the POCSO Act as it stood at the relevant time. Such a sentence adequately reflects the gravity of the repeated sexual assaults and their consequences upon the victim, while also taking into account the Appellant's age, antecedents and prolonged incarceration."

The Verdict

The Delhi High Court upheld the conviction of Mohd Anzar Ahmad under Sections 363 and 506 IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act. The sentence of 30 years' simple imprisonment under Section 6 POCSO Act was modified to 15 years' rigorous imprisonment. The fine of Rs. 25,000/- and default sentence of 30 days' simple imprisonment remain unaltered. Sentences under Sections 363 IPC (5 years SI + Rs.20,000 fine) and 506 IPC (2 years SI) remain unaltered. All substantive sentences run concurrently. The appellant is entitled to set-off for detention undergone since 13.02.2015. Statutory provisions for remission and commutation apply. The appeal is partly allowed to the extent of sentence modification.

What This Means For Similar Cases

Inconclusive Forensic Evidence Does Not Trump Credible Oral Testimony

• An inconclusive DNA/FSL report neither identifies nor excludes the accused; it is a neutral finding that does not displace consistent, credible victim testimony corroborated by medical evidence of pregnancy.
• Practitioners should argue that the prosecution's burden is met through cumulative appreciation of oral, documentary, and medical evidence, not solely forensic confirmation.
• The Court's approach: "The question of his involvement must, therefore, be determined on the basis of the remaining oral and circumstantial evidence."

Investigative Lapses in Recovery Do Not Invalidate Factum of Recovery

• Absence of independent witnesses, recovery memo, woman police officer, or local police involvement are shortcomings but do not automatically discredit recovery if victim and other witnesses consistently corroborate the factum.
• Defence must demonstrate that lapses materially prejudice the accused or suggest fabrication; mere procedural irregularities are insufficient.
• Key takeaway: "The discrepancies and investigative omissions, though relevant to assessing the manner of recovery, do not undermine the factum of recovery itself."

Sentencing Must Conform to Statutory Mandate and Proportionality

• A sentence of simple imprisonment where statute mandates rigorous imprisonment is legally erroneous and requires correction on appeal.
• Appellate courts will modify excessive sentences even when conviction is upheld, balancing gravity of offence with offender's age, antecedents, incarceration period, and reformative potential.
• Pre-2019 POCSO Act sentencing range (10 years to life RI) remains applicable for offences committed before amendment; enhanced minimums cannot apply retrospectively.
• Practitioners should specifically plead proportionality with reference to Vipul Rasikbhai Koli Jankher and Satish Kumar Dhruv precedents when seeking sentence reduction in POCSO cases involving prolonged pre-conviction custody.

Consent of Minor Is No Defence Under POCSO

• Once minority is established, consent is legally immaterial for penetrative sexual assault under POCSO. This principle must be emphasized at trial and appellate stages to preclude consent-based defences.
• The Court's clear statement: "Her willingness, if any, to accompany the appellant cannot, by itself, constitute a defence to the charge of penetrative sexual assault."