The Delhi High Court has ruled that a child’s consistent and credible testimony is sufficient for conviction under the POCSO Act, affirming that no additional corroboration or medical evidence is required when the victim’s statement inspires confidence.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: The Delhi High Court has upheld the conviction of a shopkeeper under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, emphasizing that a child’s consistent and credible testimony alone is enough to sustain a conviction for sexual assault.
Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri, while dismissing the appeal filed by Rajendra Singh, observed that the minor’s evidence was truthful, natural, and did not require independent corroboration.
Background of the Case
The case originated from an incident on July 1, 2016, when a 7-year-old girl, identified in court records as VJ, went to the appellant’s shop in Nangloi, Delhi, to purchase Fevicol for a school project.
According to her statement, Singh called her inside, made her sit on his lap, kissed her cheeks, and inserted his finger into her private parts. When the child protested, he gave her eatables and warned her not to tell anyone.
Defying the threat, the girl informed her mother immediately, who then approached the police. An FIR (No. 300/16) was promptly registered at P.S. Nangloi, and the victim was medically examined the same day. The MLC recorded redness on her labia minora, corroborating the account.
Trial Court’s Decision
The Additional Sessions Judge-06, West, Tis Hazari Courts convicted Singh under Section 7 read with Section 9 of the POCSO Act, sentencing him to five years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of ₹30,000.
However, the trial court acquitted him of the graver charge under Section 6 POCSO (penetrative sexual assault), reasoning that the child’s statement appeared exaggerated.
Appeal Before the High Court
In appeal, Singh’s counsel, Mr. Sahil Malik, argued that the case was fabricated following a quarrel between Singh and the victim’s mother regarding a defective Fevicol tube. The defence also claimed:
- Absence of external injuries in the MLC,
- Non-examination of key witnesses, and
- Prejudice was caused due to the appointment of an amicus curiae on the same day the victim’s mother was examined.
Four defence witnesses were examined to support these claims.
The State, represented by Ms. Shubhi Gupta, and Ms. Urvi Kuthiala (amicus curiae for the victim), refuted these arguments. They emphasized the prompt reporting, medical evidence, and consistency in the victim’s testimony, asserting that her statement was credible and required no corroboration.
High Court’s Findings
Justice Ohri observed that the victim’s age (7 years) was undisputed and her testimony remained consistent and spontaneous from the initial complaint to her deposition in court.
Quoting her in-court statement, the judge noted:
“Main Fevicol lene iski dukaan par gayi thi… phir usne mujhe godi mein bitha ke mere dono gaal choose, phir usne meri susu ke andar haath daala…”
The Court found this statement to be natural and unembellished. It rejected the procedural objections raised by the defence, noting that the witness was later recalled and cross-examined, thus ensuring a fair trial.
Relying on precedents such as State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh, the Court reiterated that the testimony of a child victim of sexual assault, if trustworthy, is sufficient to convict the accused, and corroboration is not a legal necessity.
Justice Ohri further clarified that the absence of physical injuries does not disprove sexual assault, citing Ranjit Hazarika v. State of Assam.
Although Justice Ohri disagreed with the trial court’s reasoning for acquitting Singh under Section 6 POCSO, he held that the High Court could not enhance the conviction in an appeal filed by the accused.
Referring to Section 386(b)(iii) Cr.P.C. and the Supreme Court’s ruling in Nagarajan v. State of Tamil Nadu, the judge explained that appellate courts cannot convert an acquittal into a conviction for a more serious offence when the appeal is solely by the convict.
ALSO READ: Denying Intimacy in Marriage: Divorce Under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Explained
Final Verdict:
The Delhi High Court ultimately dismissed the appeal, upholding Singh’s conviction under Sections 7 and 9 of POCSO. The court directed that he be taken into custody to serve the remaining portion of his sentence, cancelled his bail bonds, and discharged his sureties.
The judgment concluded with an acknowledgment of the “valuable assistance” provided by Ms. Urvi Kuthiala, amicus curiae.
Appearance:
For Appellant: Advocates Sahil Malik, Nakul Khatri, Sahil Lakra and Aditya Jain
For State: Shubhi Gupta, APP
For victim: Urvi Kuthiala, Advocate (Amicus Curiae) (pro bono)
Case Title:
Rajendra Singh vs The State Govt Of NCT Of Delhi
CRL.A. 1114/2018
Read Judgment:
