The Delhi High Court upheld Rajender Sharma’s conviction in a child sexual assault case, ruling that a child victim’s testimony can sustain conviction even without conclusive medical evidence, while clarifying that hymen rupture is unnecessary to establish penetrative assault under Section 3(a) POCSO Act.
The Delhi High Court affirmed the conviction of Rajender Sharma in a 2013 child sexual assault case, holding that the account of a child victim can be sufficient to sustain a conviction even when forensic or medical evidence is not wholly conclusive. The Court clarified that under Section 3(a) of the POCSO Act, even the slightest penetration is sufficient to constitute penetrative sexual assault. Therefore, it is not necessary that the hymen has to be ruptured to make out an offence under Section 3(a) of the Act.
The Court confirmed his culpability under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act and the Indian Penal Code (IPC), but reduced his sentence from 20 years to 14 years because the trial court had imposed a punishment that went beyond the sentencing framework applicable at the time the offence was committed.
Justice Chandrasekharan Sudha delivered the judgment, partly allowing Sharma’s appeal against the trial court’s decision in Sessions Case No. 6565/2016. The High Court upheld Sharma’s conviction under Section 6 of the POCSO Act and Section 376(2)(f) IPC, relating to the aggravated penetrative sexual assault of a six-year-old girl in Sangam Vihar, Delhi.
Factual Backgrounds:
The incident occurred on January 13, 2013. The accused, a tenant in the area, allegedly lured the child on the pretext of helping her reach the bathroom. The prosecution submitted that Sharma sexually assaulted the girl after taking her to a secluded area near his residence.
After the assault, the child reportedly disclosed the incident to her maternal grandmother. A complaint was then filed at the Sangam Vihar Police Station the next day. Initially, cases were registered under Section 376 IPC and Section 4 of the POCSO Act. As the investigation progressed and the allegations were assessed in light of their seriousness, the charges were later reframed to Section 6 of the POCSO Act and Section 376(2)(f) IPC.
Following the trial, the Sessions Court convicted Sharma on March 16, 2020, and sentenced him to 20 years of rigorous imprisonment on May 26, 2020. Before the High Court, Sharma challenged the conviction, claiming he was wrongly implicated due to a dispute concerning rent with the child’s family.
Arguments and Court’s Observation:
Sharma’s defence argued that the girl’s grandmother allegedly wanted him to vacate the premises after he refused to pay increased rent. The defence also pointed to alleged inconsistencies in the prosecution narrative particularly with regard to the exact place of occurrence, the recovery of clothes, and the forensic process.
The defence further emphasized the medical report, asserting that the child’s hymen was found intact, which, according to Sharma, contradicted the allegation of penetrative sexual assault.
The State, however, maintained that the child consistently identified “Rajinder uncle” as the assailant and repeatedly described penetration and physical pain. The prosecution argued that minor inconsistencies were natural given the tender age of the victim.
After reviewing the record, the High Court concluded that the central allegation against Sharma remained substantially consistent. Justice Sudha noted that small variations regarding the specific location of the assault could not outweigh the reliability of the child’s testimony.
The Court also considered the medical examination conducted at AIIMS, which recorded abrasions in the pubic region of the child. While the Court acknowledged shortcomings in the collection and preservation of forensic evidence, it held that these gaps would not automatically invalidate the prosecution case.
The Bench observed that scientific evidence can only serve a corroborative purpose if the victim’s testimony is itself credible.
“Even if the scientific evidence cannot be relied on… the testimony of PW1, the victim, is credible and believable and, therefore, there is no reason to disbelieve the prosecution case.”
On the argument regarding the hymen being intact, the Court explained the legal position under the POCSO Act, clarifying that a complete penetration or rupture of the hymen is not a prerequisite for establishing penetrative sexual assault.
“As per Section 3(a) PoCSO Act a person is said to commit penetrative assault if he penetrates his penis to any extent into the vagina… Therefore, it is not necessary that the hymen has to be ruptured to make out an offence under Section 3(a) of the Act.”
ALSO READ: ‘Terminate 30-Week Pregnancy’: HC Permits 11-Year-Old Sexual Assault Survivor
The High Court rejected the theory that Sharma was falsely implicated due to the rent dispute. It found it unlikely that a family would coach a six-year-old child to level such serious accusations merely to remove a tenant.
“From the materials on record, I find no reason(s) to disbelieve the prosecution case.”
While the conviction was upheld, the sentence was modified. The Court noted that the punishment awarded by the trial court exceeded the sentencing limits prescribed under law applicable in 2013, and therefore required correction, citing relevant legal precedent.
“The appeal is partly allowed. The conclusion regarding the finding of guilt… is confirmed. However, the substantive sentence of imprisonment is modified from 20 years to 14 years.”
The decision is an important addition to the developing jurisprudence under the POCSO Act, especially regarding how courts should evaluate the testimony of child survivors. It reiterates that credible and trustworthy testimony from a minor victim can sustain a conviction even if forensic evidence is imperfect or medical findings do not definitively establish the assault. The judgment also highlights that courts must impose sentences in line with the legal provisions that were in force at the time the offence was committed.
Case Title: Rajender Sharma Vs State (NCT) of Delhi
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE