Delhi High Court acquitted a man in a 2023 sexual assault case, ruling that vague references to “physical relations” without detailed testimony or supporting evidence are insufficient to prove rape or POCSO offences.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: In a judgment delivered on October 17, 2025, the Delhi High Court acquitted a man convicted of rape and aggravated sexual assault, emphasizing that the mere use of the term “physical relations” without concrete supporting evidence cannot establish the commission of such offences.
Background of the Case
The case dates back to 2023, involving allegations by a 16-year-old girl that her cousin had engaged in “physical relations” with her on the false pretext of marriage in 2014. Based solely on the oral testimony of the child and her parents, the trial court had convicted the accused under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, sentencing him to 10 years in prison.
Court’s Observations
Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri, in delivering the judgment, highlighted a critical gap in the prosecution’s case:
- Vague Terminology: The term “physical relations” was repeatedly used by the victim and her parents, but there was no clarity regarding what it precisely meant. The court noted that neither the IPC nor the POCSO Act defines or uses the term.
- Lack of Detailed Testimony: The victim did not describe the alleged act in a manner that could establish the essential ingredients of rape or aggravated penetrative sexual assault.
- Absence of Supporting Evidence: No forensic evidence or corroborative material was presented to support the allegations. The prosecution’s case rested solely on oral testimony, which lacked specificity.
- Prosecutorial Oversight: The court observed that neither the prosecution nor the trial court asked probing questions to clarify the meaning of “physical relations” or determine whether the statutory requirements of the offence were fulfilled.
Court’s Reasoning
Justice Ohri stressed that it is the statutory duty of the court to ensure proper proof of relevant facts, especially in cases involving child witnesses. This includes:
- Assessing the competence of the child to testify.
- Asking relevant questions to extract a complete and clear account of the alleged offence.
- Ensuring that the prosecution presents evidence that satisfies the legal threshold of proof “beyond a reasonable doubt.”
In the absence of these, the court cannot uphold convictions. The High Court held that the appellant’s conviction was “unsustainable” under both the IPC and POCSO Act.