PoCSO Section 6 | Credible Child Testimony Alone Suffices for Conviction Even Without Hymen Rupture or Forensic Evidence: Delhi HC

The Delhi High Court has affirmed that the credibility of a child victim’s testimony alone can sustain a conviction under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, even in the absence of reliable forensic corroboration or medical evidence of hymen rupture. This judgment reinforces the legal principle that procedural lapses in evidence collection do not automatically invalidate a prosecution case when the victim’s account is consistent and credible.

Background & Facts

The Dispute

The appellant, Rajender Sharma, was convicted for committing penetrative sexual assault on a six-year-old girl, PW1, on 13.01.2013, at D-29/3, Rashtriya Marg, Sangam Vihar, New Delhi. The victim, who resided in the house with her maternal grandmother, PW2, alleged that the accused, a tenant in the same house, picked her up while she was going to the bathroom, removed her clothing, and penetrated her private parts. The incident was reported the next day, leading to registration of Crime No. 19/2013 at Sangam Vihar Police Station.

Key Facts

• The victim was six years old at the time of the incident on 13.01.2013.
• The First Information Statement (FIS/FIR), Ext. PW1/A, was recorded on 14.01.2013.
• The victim’s statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., Ext. PW7/A, was recorded on the same day, 14.01.2013.
• The victim was medically examined at AIIMS Hospital on 14.01.2013; MLC Ext. PW4/A was issued by Dr. PW4, Senior Resident.
• The MLC noted an abrasion of 1.5 x 0.5 cm on the victim’s pubis and recorded that her panty was preserved as an exhibit.
• The accused was arrested on 14.01.2013 by Sub-Inspector Kusum Dangi (PW13).
• The charge-sheet was filed on 14.01.2013, alleging offences under Section 376 IPC and Section 4 of the PoCSO Act.
• On 07.12.2018, the charge was altered to Section 376(2)(f) IPC and Section 6 read with Section 5(m) of the PoCSO Act.
• The trial court framed charges on 07.12.2018, and the accused pleaded not guilty.
• The trial concluded on 16.03.2020 with conviction and sentencing on 26.05.2020.
• The accused’s defence claimed a rent dispute motivated PW2 to fabricate the allegation.
• DW1 and DW2, close relatives of the accused, testified that PW2 threatened to evict them and had pressured the victim to falsely accuse the accused.
• No undergarment of the victim was seized or produced in court despite PW2’s testimony that it was taken by police.
• The FSL report (Ext. PW11/A), dated 21.01.2013, supported penetration, but its admissibility was challenged due to defective seizure procedures.

Procedural History

• 13.01.2013: Alleged incident of penetrative sexual assault.
• 14.01.2013: FIR registered (Crime No. 19/2013); victim examined at AIIMS; accused arrested.
• 04.04.2013: Magistrate committed case to Sessions Court.
• 06.05.2013: Initial charge framed under Section 376 IPC and Section 4 PoCSO.
• 07.12.2018: Charge altered to Section 376(2)(f) IPC and Section 6 read with Section 5(m) PoCSO.
• 16.03.2020: Trial Court convicted accused.
• 26.05.2020: Accused sentenced to 20 years rigorous imprisonment and ₹3,000 fine.
• 30.04.2026: Judgment reserved.
• 05.05.2026: Judgment pronounced by Delhi High Court.

The Parties' Positions

For the Appellant

• Argued that the victim’s statements contained material contradictions regarding the location of the assault (bathroom vs. backlane).
• Contended that the undergarment of the victim was not seized or produced, and the FSL report was inadmissible due to defective chain of custody.
• Claimed that the medical evidence (intact hymen) contradicted the allegation of penetrative assault.
• Asserted that PW2, the maternal grandmother, had a motive to falsely implicate the accused due to a rent dispute.
• Argued that DW1 and DW2, though relatives, were credible as they had no personal interest in the outcome beyond familial loyalty.

For the Respondent (State)

• Maintained that the victim’s testimony was consistent across FIS, Section 164 statement, and trial testimony.
• Stated that minor discrepancies in location were immaterial and explained by the victim’s age and trauma.
• Emphasized that the abrasion on the pubis and the victim’s account of pain corroborated penetration.
• Argued that the defence witnesses were biased as they were close relatives of the accused and stood to benefit from his acquittal.
• Contended that the absence of forensic evidence did not negate the victim’s credible testimony.

Relief Sought

The appellant sought acquittal on grounds of insufficient evidence and procedural irregularities. Alternatively, he sought reduction of the 20-year sentence to the period already served.

The Legal Issue

The central question was whether a conviction under Section 6 of the PoCSO Act can be sustained solely on the credible testimony of a child victim, even when forensic evidence is compromised due to procedural lapses in seizure and chain of custody, and when medical evidence does not show hymen rupture.

Arguments Presented

For the Appellant

The appellant’s counsel relied on State of Maharashtra v. Madhukar Narayan Mardikar (2010) to argue that scientific evidence is indispensable in sexual assault cases involving children. He contended that the failure to seize the victim’s undergarment and the conflicting testimonies regarding the seizure of samples from the accused rendered the FSL report inadmissible. He further cited State of U.P. v. Krishna (2018) to argue that an intact hymen negates the possibility of penetration, and that the victim’s inconsistent account of the location of the assault raised reasonable doubt. He emphasized that the defence witnesses’ testimony about a rent dispute was unchallenged and plausible.

For the Respondent

The Additional Public Prosecutor relied on State of Haryana v. Bhagwan Singh (2021) and State of Rajasthan v. Ram Singh (2022) to argue that the testimony of a child victim, if consistent and unimpeached, is sufficient for conviction. He submitted that minor inconsistencies in the victim’s account regarding the exact location of the assault were natural given her age and trauma. He pointed out that the abrasion on the pubis and the victim’s description of pain were sufficient to establish penetration. He further argued that the defence witnesses were interested and their version was improbable, as it required a six-year-old child to be tutored into making a false accusation.

The Court's Analysis

The Court undertook a meticulous review of the evidence, beginning with the victim’s testimony. It noted that PW1, despite being a child of six, gave a consistent account of the assault across her FIS, Section 164 statement, and trial testimony. The Court observed that while she initially mentioned the backlane (gali) in the FIS, she later stated the assault occurred in the bathroom in her 164 statement and in court. The Court held that this discrepancy was not material, as the evidence showed the bathroom had an external door opening to the gali, making both descriptions potentially consistent.

"The inconsistency pointed out is immaterial and the same has in no way affected the prosecution case."

The Court rejected the argument that the intact hymen negated penetration. It relied on Section 3(a) of the PoCSO Act, which defines penetrative sexual assault as the penetration of the penis to any extent into the vagina, irrespective of rupture of the hymen. The Court cited State of Karnataka v. Suresh (2020) to affirm that hymen integrity is not a determinative factor in proving penetration.

Regarding forensic evidence, the Court acknowledged serious lapses: the undergarment of the victim was not seized despite PW2’s testimony that it was; the seizure memos (Ext. PW9/A and PW16/A) were contradictory and lacked corroboration; and the chain of custody for samples was not properly established. The Court held:

"The evidence regarding the seizure of the undergarment as well as seizure of samples from PW1 and the accused is not satisfactory... the FSL report... cannot be relied on as the materials on record regarding seizing of samples and exhibits are far from satisfactory."

However, the Court emphasized that scientific evidence is corroborative, not substantive. It held that the victim’s testimony, supported by the medical finding of a pubic abrasion and the grandmother’s testimony of the victim’s distress, was sufficient to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

The Court also dismissed the defence’s claim of a rent dispute as motive for fabrication, calling it "quite improbable" given the victim’s age and the gravity of the accusation.

Finally, the Court addressed sentencing. It noted that Section 6 of the PoCSO Act, as it stood in 2013, mandated a minimum of 10 years and permitted life imprisonment, but did not permit a sentence exceeding 14 years if imposed as a term. It relied on Ravinder Singh v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2024) to hold that the trial court’s imposition of 20 years was legally unsustainable.

The Verdict

The appeal was partly allowed. The conviction of the appellant under Section 376(2)(f) IPC and Section 6 of the PoCSO Act was confirmed. However, the substantive sentence of rigorous imprisonment was reduced from 20 years to 14 years. The fine of ₹3,000 and the default sentence of one month’s simple imprisonment were upheld. The Court directed that the appellant be released upon serving the 14-year term, with credit for time already served.

What This Means For Similar Cases

Victim Testimony Is Sufficient Without Forensic Corroboration

• Practitioners must argue that the absence of seized clothing or flawed forensic chain does not automatically entitle an accused to acquittal.
• Courts are bound to prioritize the credibility and consistency of a child victim’s testimony under Section 118 of the Indian Evidence Act and Section 29 of the PoCSO Act.
• In cases where medical evidence is inconclusive, the presence of physical signs such as abrasions, pain, or behavioral changes can substantiate the victim’s account.

Hymen Integrity Is Not a Legal Benchmark for Penetration

• The legal definition of penetrative assault under Section 3(a) of the PoCSO Act does not require rupture of the hymen.
• Defence arguments based on hymen integrity are legally untenable and should be rebutted with statutory interpretation and judicial precedents.
• Medical experts must be questioned on whether hymen status is relevant under the PoCSO Act, not general medical standards.

Procedural Lapses Must Be Evaluated for Prejudice, Not Automatic Reversal

• Courts must assess whether procedural failures in evidence collection caused actual prejudice to the accused.
• Mere technical defects in seizure memos or inconsistent witness accounts do not vitiate a conviction if the core testimony remains credible.
• Prosecutors should ensure meticulous documentation, but failure to do so does not override the evidentiary weight of a child’s consistent testimony.