The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal of Shankar Singh, upholding his conviction for aggravated sexual assault under the IPC and Section 6 of the PoCSO Act, and clarified the evidentiary status of Section 164 statements and the competence requirements for interpreters in child-friendly trials.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The appellant, Shankar Singh, was convicted for the alleged confinement and penetrative sexual assault of an 11-year-old girl (PW1) on 27.06.2017 at his jhuggi in Bhim Nagar, Nangloi, Delhi. The prosecution alleged that Singh repeatedly assaulted the child and that the offences fell under Sections 342, 376(2)(i) and (l) of the IPC and Section 6 of the PoCSO Act.
Key Facts
- 27.06.2017: Incident occurred at about 04:00 p.m.; PW3 (brother) reported the assault to his mother (PW2).
- 27.06.2017: FIR (Crime no. 296/2017) registered at Mianwali Nagar Police Station by ASI Rajesh.
- 10.04.2018: Trial court framed charge under Sections 342, 376(2) IPC and Section 6 PoCSO.
- 20.10.2023: Application for ossification test allowed; report dated 26.10.2023 placed victim’s age between 17 and 20 years.
- 12.08.2024: Trial court delivered judgment finding the appellant guilty.
- 30.08.2024: Sentence order: rigorous imprisonment 12 years (IPC offences and PoCSO), fine ₹12,000 (PoCSO), default month imprisonment; additional 6 months rigorous imprisonment and fine ₹500 for IPC 342, default 15 days.
- 11.08.2026: Appeal reserved.
- 17.08.2026: Appeal pronounced, dismissing the appeal.
Procedural History
- 27.06.2017: FIR lodged.
- 10.04.2018: Charge framed by trial court.
- 20.10.2023: Ossification test ordered.
- 12.08.2024: Trial court conviction.
- 30.08.2024: Sentence pronounced.
- 11.08.2026: Appeal reserved before the Delhi High Court.
- 17.08.2026: Appeal decided.
The Parties' Positions
- Appellant: Contended that the Section 164 statement was unreliable because the mother (PW2) acted as interpreter; argued that the clinical psychologist (CW1) was not a special educator; claimed medical report showed no fresh hymen tear; sought reversal of conviction and reduction of sentence.
- Respondent (State): Asserted that PW1’s testimony, corroborated by PW2, PW3 and medical evidence, established penetrative assault; maintained that CW1 was competent and that Section 19(4) and 26(3) PoCSO requirements were satisfied; argued that the trial court correctly applied the law.
Relief Sought
The appellant sought setting aside of the conviction, removal of the 12-year rigorous imprisonment, and direction that the case be remanded for fresh trial.
The Legal Issue
Whether the conviction under Sections 342, 376(2) IPC and Section 6 PoCSO can be sustained despite alleged procedural infirmities concerning the competence of the interpreter for the Section 164 statement, the admissibility of that statement without oath, and the evidentiary weight of medical findings that did not show a fresh hymen tear.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant
- The Section 164 statement of PW1 was recorded with the mother (an interested party) acting as interpreter, violating State of Rajasthan v. Darshan Singh and rendering the statement unreliable.
- CW1, a clinical psychologist, was not a special educator as required by Sections 19(4) and 26(3) PoCSO; therefore the child-friendly safeguards were breached.
- Absence of fresh injuries in the medical report undermined the allegation of penetrative assault; medical evidence is decisive, not merely corroborative.
- Non-compliance with Section 232 CrPC (no hearing) caused prejudice, warranting reversal.
For the Respondent
- The Section 164 statement is admissible as corroborative evidence; its reliability is not negated merely because an interested person assisted, as held in Moidu K. vs. State of Kerala.
- Section 19(4) and 26(3) PoCSO allow any person familiar with the child’s mode of communication; a clinical psychologist qualifies.
- Medical evidence, while not showing fresh injury, corroborates the eyewitness testimony; as per Solanki Chimanbhai Ukabhai v. State of Gujarat, medical evidence is not determinative.
- The trial court complied with procedural safeguards, including voir dire and presence of support persons, satisfying the child-friendly requirements of Section 33 PoCSO.
The Court's Analysis
The Court first examined the statutory framework governing child witnesses. It noted that Section 164 CrPC records a statement for the purpose of corroboration and that the absence of an oath affects credibility, not competency. Restating the settled position and citing Rameswar v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1952 SC 54, the Court observed:
"The testimony of a witness to whom oath was not administered is as good as that of a witness to whom oath had been administered. The Oaths Act does not deal with competency." The Court then considered the competence of the interpreter. While acknowledging that an interested person may influence translation, it held that the mother’s role did not automatically vitiate the statement because the child was able to communicate directly and the translation was assisted by a qualified clinical psychologist fluent in Maithili. The Court distinguished Darshan Singh on the basis that the latter involved a sign-language interpreter who was not a specialist, whereas here the interpreter was a parent with no proven bias. Regarding Sections 19(4) and 26(3) PoCSO, the Court emphasized that the statute expressly permits “any person familiar with the manner of communication of the child” and does not mandate a special educator in every case. It observed that CW1, a clinical psychologist with experience in child assessment, satisfied the statutory requirement. On the medical evidence, the Court reiterated the principle that medical findings are corroborative. It cited Solanki and Rangnath Shamrao Dhas to affirm that the lack of a fresh hymen tear does not defeat the prosecution’s case when eyewitness testimony is credible. The Court found the victim’s gestures, the 164 statement, and the brother’s testimony collectively sufficient to prove penetrative assault. Finally, the Court addressed the alleged non-compliance with Section 232 CrPC, concluding that the omission did not cause substantial prejudice, referencing Moidu K.. In sum, the Court held that none of the alleged procedural lapses warranted interference with the trial court’s findings.
The Verdict
The appeal is dismissed. The conviction under Sections 342, 376(2)(i) and (l) IPC and Section 6 PoCSO stands. The appellant is sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 12 years, a fine of ₹12,000 (default month imprisonment) for the PoCSO offence, and an additional rigorous imprisonment of 6 months with a fine of ₹500 (default 15 days) for IPC 342, all to run concurrently. No separate sentence is awarded for Section 376(2) due to Section 42 PoCSO. All pending applications stand closed.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Section 164 Statements Remain Evidentiary
- A Section 164 statement recorded with the assistance of a parent is admissible as corroborative evidence, provided the child can communicate directly.
- Lack of oath affects credibility only; it does not render the statement inadmissible.
Interpreter Competence Under PoCSO
- The PoCSO Act does not require a special educator in every instance; a qualified professional familiar with the child’s language suffices.
- Courts will assess the interpreter’s actual competence rather than apply a rigid categorical rule.
Medical Evidence Is Corroborative, Not Determinative
-
Absence of fresh injuries does not automatically negate a charge of penetrative assault when eyewitness testimony is credible.
-
Medical reports should be viewed as supporting evidence, not the sole basis for conviction.
-
Practitioners should ensure that child witnesses are supported by qualified interpreters fluent in the child’s dialect.
-
When challenging a Section 164 statement, focus on credibility factors rather than procedural technicalities.
-
Prepare comprehensive medical and forensic reports to bolster the prosecution’s case, recognizing their corroborative role.
