Delhi High Court rejects appeal of rape convict, emphasizing that offenses strike at the very core of a child’s dignity. POCSO Act ensures strict punishment for sexual crimes against children.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: The Delhi High Court upheld the conviction of the appellant under Section 6 of the POCSO Act (aggravated penetrative sexual assault) and Section 376(2) IPC (rape), reiterating the judiciary’s duty to impose strict consequences in cases of sexual crimes against children. Justice Sanjeev Narula dismissed the appeal, reinforcing the principle that children’s testimonies, if credible and consistent, require full judicial weight, even in the absence of visible injuries.
“Offences of this nature strike at the very core of a child’s dignity and security. The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 [POCSO Act] was enacted to ensure that children are safeguarded against sexual abuse in all its forms, and to mandate a sensitive but firm judicial response. Courts are under a solemn duty not only to do justice in the individual case, but also to reaffirm society’s commitment that such crimes will be met with stern consequences,”
the Court said.
Background
The victim, an 8-year-old girl, was accosted by her neighbor, Chand Miya, who confined her in his godown and subjected her to anal penetration. She immediately disclosed the incident to her mother, leading to the prompt registration of an FIR.
Medical examination revealed mild redness on the labia, though no tears or bleeding were observed. Forensic analysis confirmed the presence of the accused’s semen on the victim’s clothes.
The trial court convicted the accused in 2024 and sentenced him to 10 years’ rigorous imprisonment, along with fines and compensation to the victim.
Grounds of Appeal
The appellant challenged the conviction on several grounds:
- Contradictions in the victim’s accounts (attempted vs. actual penetration).
- Absence of injuries in the medical report.
- FSL delays raise suspicion of tampering.
- Prior animosity between the accused and the victim’s family.
- Lapses in investigation (no independent witnesses, no site plan).
- Even if the offense was proved, it amounted to “sexual assault” (Sec. 7 POCSO), not penetrative assault.
High Court’s Analysis
1. Age and Applicability of POCSO
- School records confirmed the victim’s DOB as 1st January 2010, making her 8 years old at the time.
- This brought the case squarely under the POCSO Act, triggering presumptions under Sections 29–30 against the accused.
2. Victim’s Testimony
- Four consistent accounts: complaint, medical history, Section 164 CrPC statement, and trial deposition.
- Minor variations (attempt vs. penetration) are attributed to the child’s limited articulation, not contradictions.
- The court emphasized that even slight penetration constitutes penetrative sexual assault under Section 3 POCSO.
3. Medical and Forensic Evidence
- Though no injuries were observed, the law does not make injury a sine qua non.
- DNA analysis showed the accused’s semen on the victim’s clothes, corroborating her testimony.
- The delay in sending exhibits to FSL was not fatal as the chain of custody remained intact.
4. Defense Arguments
- Alleged prior animosity was unsupported by evidence.
- Testimony of the accused’s brother (DW-1) was considered interested and speculative.
- Investigative lapses (no site plan, no public witnesses) did not erode the weight of the victim’s consistent testimony.
“In light of the foregoing discussion, this Court finds no infirmity in the conviction of the Appellant under, inter alia, Section 6 of the POCSO Act and Section 376(2) IPC, nor in the sentence imposed. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. The conviction and sentence recorded by the Trial Court are affirmed,”
the Bench said.
Legal Principles
- Testimony of a child victim, if credible, can form the sole basis of a conviction (no need for corroboration).
- Absence of injuries or negative swab results does not negate penetrative assault, especially with corroborative DNA evidence.
- Presumptions under Section 29 POCSO shift the burden to the accused once foundational facts are established.
- Courts must adopt a sensitive but firm approach in sexual offense cases involving children.
Appearance:
Appellant Chand Miya: Advocates Cauveri Birbal, Kamlendu Pandey and Nistha Dhall
State: Additional Public Prosecutor (APP) Amit Ahlawat
complainant: Advocate Deepak Goel
Case Title:
Chand Miya v State (NCT of Delhi)
CRL.A. 98/2025 & CRL.M.(BAIL) 184/2025
Read Judgment:
