The Delhi High Court has held that the credible sole testimony of a minor rape survivor is sufficient to uphold conviction, ruling that lack of medical or forensic proof cannot overshadow consistent and trustworthy victim evidence under POCSO law.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: In a judgment reinforcing the evidentiary weight of a victim’s testimony in sexual offence cases, the Delhi High Court has upheld the conviction of a man accused of raping a minor. Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri dismissed the appeal filed by the accused, Irfan, reiterating that the sole and credible testimony of a victim of sexual assault is sufficient to sustain a conviction without the need for corroboration.
The High Court confirmed the appellant’s conviction under Sections 376 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act. The appeal challenged a 2016 judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge at Saket Courts, which had sentenced Irfan to seven years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine.
Case Background
The incident occurred on June 17, 2013, in the Sangam Vihar locality of Delhi. The prosecutrix, who was below seventeen years of age at the time, had gone out early in the morning around 4:00 a.m. to fill water from a common tap on the floor where her family resided.
The appellant, who lived on the same floor of the multi-tenanted building, approached her at that moment and forcibly pulled her into an empty room identified as Room No. 02. After shutting the door from inside, he subjected her to sexual intercourse against her will. Following the assault, he threatened to kill her brother if she revealed the incident to anyone.
The fear caused by this threat kept the child silent for the next four days. It was only when her mother noticed her distressed condition and questioned her repeatedly that she finally disclosed that she had been raped. After learning of the incident, the family informed the police, which led to the registration of FIR No. 270/2013 at Police Station Sangam Vihar.
ALSO READ: “Love, Not Lust”: Supreme Court Quashes POCSO Conviction After Victim Marries Accused
Grounds Raised by the Defense
In the appeal, the appellant questioned the conviction on several grounds. He argued that the prosecution had failed to examine the mother of the prosecutrix, who was the first person to whom the incident was disclosed, and therefore, a material witness was withheld. He further submitted that the medical and forensic evidence did not support the prosecution’s version, pointing to the absence of external injuries on the prosecutrix and the negative FSL report.
The appellant also attempted to cast doubt on the survivor’s testimony by claiming that her statements under Section 161 CrPC and Section 164 CrPC, as well as her deposition before the Court, reflected shifting versions regarding the time of the incident.
Additionally, he contended that the four-day delay in lodging the FIR made the prosecution’s story inherently doubtful. Finally, the defence asserted that the case was one of false implication, alleging that the appellant had been framed due to a monetary dispute and his refusal to marry the prosecutrix.
High Court’s Findings
Justice Ohri rejected all grounds raised by the defense, making the following observations:
1. Sole Testimony of Victim Enough for Conviction
The Court relied on precedents, including State of Punjab vs. Gurmit Singh (1996) and Ganesan vs. State (2020), and held:
“The sole testimony of the victim, if found wholly credible, requires no corroboration to invite conviction.”
2. Minor Inconsistencies Do Not Affect the Core of Testimony
The Court noted that the victim’s core version remained consistent across:
- MLC (Medical Legal Case history)
- Statement under Section 161 CrPC
- Statement under Section 164 CrPC
- Court deposition
3. Medical Evidence Not Contradictory
Although external injuries were not present and the FSL report was negative, the Court emphasized:
- The MLC recorded a torn hymen
- The victim was medically examined four days after the incident, reducing the chances of detecting semen
4. Delay in FIR Explained
The delay was deemed natural and credible due to the threat to the victim’s brother.
5. False Implication Claim Rejected
The allegation of monetary dispute was dismissed as a baseless and unsubstantiated claim.
The Delhi High Court ruled the appeal “devoid of merit” and upheld:
- Conviction of the accused
- Sentence of seven years’ rigorous imprisonment
The appellant was directed to be taken into custody to serve the remainder of his sentence.
Case Title:
IRFAN versus STATE
CRL.A. 90/2017
READ JUDGMENT
Click Here to Read More Reports On POCSO
