Delhi High Court upheld conviction based on victim’s sole testimony, stressing reliability over corroboration. Justice Chandrasekharan Sudha held acts before minor constituted offences under IPC and POCSO Act provisions.
NEW DELHI: The Delhi High Court while confirming the trial court decision reiterated the settled principle that conviction may be sustained on the sole testimony of the victim if it is reliable and of sterling quality, and it may not require corroboration in every case.
Justice Chandrasekharan Sudha held that unzipping pants, exposing private parts, and being engaged in a lewd/sexually coloured act in minor girl’s presence, causing her fear and leading her to jump out of the moving vehicle falls under Section 354 of IPC, Section 251 of IPC and Section 12 of POCSO Act read with section 11.
Factual Background
On 23.02.2014 at around 10:15 AM, a medical camp was arranged at PW1’s school, and PW1’s presence was required. Since school buses were not operating that day, PW1 stood near the Chaupal at Jindpur Chowk to arrange a ride by rickshaw.
ALSO READ:Thane Rickshaw Driver Acquitted in POCSO Case Over Schoolgirl Modesty Allegation
While waiting, a white-coloured van approached from the front and stopped near PW1. The driver, the accused Ajay, was already known to PW1. The accused offered to drop PW1 at school, and PW1 accepted and entered the van.
When the van reached Alipur, PW1 requested the accused to stop and drop her. However, the accused did not stop the vehicle. PW1 then stated that the accused unzipped his pants, exposed his private parts, and began a lewd act while moving the van described by the testimony as “shuushubaahar nikaalkar hilane laga”.
Fearful after witnessing the act, PW1 jumped out of the moving van. After falling, PW1 noted the van’s vehicle registration number, DL-8CP-9085, before the accused sped away. PW1 further testified that she narrated the entire incident to her father (PW2), who later reported it to the police.
Prosecution Case
The prosecution alleged that on 23.02.2014 at about 10:15 AM, on the main road near the BDO Office, Alipur, the accused assaulted a minor girl of about 13 years by showing his private part to her with the intention to outrage her modesty.
Investigation was entrusted to a Sub-Inspector (SI). After completing the investigation, the SI filed the charge-sheet report dated 18.03.2014. According to the charge-sheet, the accused was alleged to have committed offences punishable under:
- Section 354 IPC, and
- Section 354A IPC, and
- Section 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act
After the prosecution evidence was closed, the accused was questioned under Section 313(1)(b) CrPC about the incriminating circumstances. The accused denied the allegations and claimed innocence.
The trial court was required to comply with Section 232 CrPC (which deals with the stage of acquittal in cases where no case is made out). However, the record did not show that any hearing as contemplated under Section 232 CrPC was conducted. The court noted that lack of compliance does not automatically vitiate the trial unless serious and substantial prejudice to the accused is shown.
Trial Court’s Findings and Sentence
After considering the oral and documentary evidence and hearing both sides, the trial court delivered the impugned judgment dated 19.12.2016, holding the accused guilty under:
- Section 354 IPC, and
- Section 12 POCSO Act
By an order on sentence dated 22.12.2016, the accused was sentenced to:
- Rigorous imprisonment of 1 year plus fine of Rs 2,500 (in default, simple imprisonment for 30 days) under Section 354 IPC; and
- Rigorous imprisonment of 1 year plus fine of Rs 2,500 (in default, simple imprisonment for 30 days) under Section 12 POCSO Act;
The sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, the accused preferred the appeal.
Contentions of the Parties
Appellant (Accused)
Learned counsel for the appellant challenged the conviction stating that the prosecution case had serious infirmities. He also argued that PW3, PW4 and PW8 allegedly failed to corroborate the victim on material aspects. In the absence of such corroboration, the victim’s testimony should be treated as doubtful and unsafe, especially because conviction requires that the victim’s evidence be of “sterling quality.”
ALSO READ: Delhi Court in POCSO Case: ‘No Amount of Compensation Can Undo Trauma’
Respondent State
The learned Additional Public Prosecutor supported the trial court and submitted that the trial court’s conviction was based on the cogent, consistent and trustworthy testimony of the minor victim girl. She stood by her version throughout the trial, and the conviction did not suffer from any illegality.
Issues for Determination and Observations of Court
Issue 1: Whether the evidence satisfies the ingredients of the offences charged?
Section 354 IPC requires:
- use of criminal force or assault against a woman, and
- the act must be done with the intention to outrage, or with knowledge that it is likely to outrage, her modesty.
Assault under Section 351 IPC includes a gesture or preparation intended/known to likely cause apprehension that criminal force is about to be used.
Section 12 POCSO Act, read with Section 11, deals with sexual harassment, including showing any body part/object with sexual intent and making a child witness a sexually coloured act.
The court observed that PW1 consistently stated that the accused while driving:
- unzipped his pants,
- exposed his private parts, and
- engaged in a lewd/sexually coloured act in her presence,
causing her fear and leading her to jump out of the moving vehicle.
On that basis, the court held the act to be directly covered under both provisions.
Issue 2: Whether conviction can rest on the sole testimony of the victim?
The court reiterated the settled principle that conviction may be sustained on the sole testimony of the victim if it is reliable and of sterling quality, and it may not require corroboration in every case (citing Rai Sandeep @ Deepu v. State (NCT of Delhi), AIR 2012 SC 157).
It said,
“conviction can be based on the sole testimony of the victim if it is of sterling quality, and the same does not require any corroboration …”
In this matter, the court noted that PW1 supported the prosecution case in her FIS/FIR, her statement under Section 164 CrPC, and her testimony before the trial court.
ALSO READ: POCSO Case || Karnataka HC Grants Anticipatory Bail to EX-CM BS Yediyurappa
The court further found that the core allegations the identity of the accused, the exposure of private part, and the manner of the incident remained intact and consistent. The court treated the defence’s pointed discrepancies such as route details or conversations as minor and not touching the root of the case, particularly given that PW1 was a child witness.
It was also observed that even if some witnesses did not fully support the prosecution, their partial lack of support does not necessarily destroy the prosecution case if victim’s testimony remains credible.
It found,
“The testimony of PW1, when read in its entirety, inspires the confidence of this Court and that it is of sterling quality…”
The court also addressed reliance placed on police statements recorded under Section 161 CrPC. It observed that statements under Section 161 are not usable generally for corroboration, except as permitted under the proviso to Section 162(1) CrPC primarily to contradict a witness in the manner contemplated by the Evidence Act.
It said,
“The statements made under Section 161 Cr.P.C. are statements made to the police during the course of investigation and the same cannot be used except for the purpose stated in the proviso to Section 162(1) Cr.P.C.”
The court relied on the principle that 161 CrPC statements cannot be used as substantive support for the victim’s in-court testimony, emphasizing limits on their evidentiary use as guided by cases such as Tahasildar Singh v. State of U.P., Sat Paul v. Delhi Administration, and Delhi Administration v. Lakshman Kumar.
The appellate court found no infirmity in the trial court’s reasoning and conviction that would justify interference. The appeal was dismissed as lacking merit.
Case Title: AJAY KUMAR Vs STATE (NCT OF DELHI)