Sonu vs State (Gnct) Of Delhi & Anr.
- Court
- Delhi High Court
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Reserved on: 15.10.2026
Pronounced on: 28.10.2026
Uploaded on: 28.10.2026
# CNR No. DLHC010079272025
+ CRL.A. 209/2025
SONU .....Appellant
Through: Ms. Vrinda Bhandari (DHCLSC) and
Ms. Vanshita Gupta, Advs.
versus
STATE (GNCT) OF DELHI & ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Raghuvinder Verma, APP
Mr. Harsh Prabhakar, Adv.
(DHCLSC) for Victim.
CORAM:
HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE MADHU JAIN
JUDGMENT
MADHU JAIN, J.
1. The present appeal has been preferred by the appellant, Sonu, under
Section 415(2) read with Sections 424 and 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as the “BNSS”), assailing
the judgment of conviction dated 14.11.2024 and order on sentence dated
19.12.2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTSC-
POCSO), North District, Rohini Courts, Delhi, in Sessions Case No.
847/2023, arising out of FIR No. 667/2023 registered at Police Station
Swaroop Nagar.
2. Vide the impugned judgment, the appellant was convicted for the
offences punishable under Sections 354, 354A, 354B and 506(1) of the
Signature Not Verified
CRL.A. 209/2025 Page 1 of 25
Signed By:BHARTI
Signing Date:28.10.2026
17:32:59
Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as the “IPC”), and
Sections 9(m) and 9(n), punishable under Section 10 of the Protection of
Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as the
“POCSO Act”).
3. Vide the order on sentence, the appellant was awarded varying
terms of imprisonment, the maximum being rigorous imprisonment for six
years, along with fines, with all substantive sentences directed to run
concurrently.
BRIEF FACTS
4. Briefly stated, the prosecution case is that on 20.10.2023, a PCR
call vide GD No. 53A, concerning an alleged incident of sexual assault
upon a minor child, was received at Police Station Swaroop Nagar and
assigned to W/SI Sheetal for necessary action. Pursuant thereto, W/SI
Sheetal, along with other police personnel and a counsellor, reached
Burari Hospital, where the child victim ( hereinafter referred to as ‘K’ )
was present along with her father, maternal grandmother and her sister,
( hereinafter referred to as ‘Y’ ).
5. As per the prosecution, during her medical examination, the child
victim disclosed that approximately three weeks prior thereto, her
maternal uncle, namely Sonu (hereinafter referred to as the ‘appellant’) ,
had subjected her to inappropriate sexual contact at their residence. It was
alleged that the appellant had removed his clothes as well as those of the
child victim and had touched his private part against her body. It was
further alleged that her maternal grandmother had arrived during the
incident and reprimanded the appellant. The child victim had not disclosed
Signature Not Verified
CRL.A. 209/2025 Page 2 of 25
Signed By:BHARTI
Signing Date:28.10.2026
17:32:59
the incident earlier on account of fear.
6. Since the child victim was unable to give her statement to the police
at that stage, the statement of her maternal grandmother, Smt. ‘V’, was
recorded. On the basis of the said statement, FIR No. 667/2023 was
registered at Police Station Swaroop Nagar for the offences punishable
under Sections 354, 354A, 354B and 509 of the IPC Section 10 of the
POCSO Act.
7. During investigation, the statement of the child victim was
recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
(hereinafter referred to as the ‘CrPC’). The Investigating Officer also
collected the medical records and documents pertaining to the age of the
child victim, prepared the site plan and recorded the statements of the
witnesses. Upon completion of investigation, the charge-sheet was filed
before the learned Trial Court.
8. Vide order dated 15.02.2024, the learned Trial Court framed
charges against the appellant for the offences punishable under Sections
354, 354A, 354B and 506 IPC, and Sections 9(m) and 9(n), punishable
under Section 10 of the POCSO Act. The appellant pleaded not guilty and
claimed trial. The order dated 15.02.2024 reads as under:
“I, Ajay Nagar, Additional Sessions Judge (FTSC)
(POCSO), North, Rohini, Delhi do hereby charge
you accused Sonu S/O Sh. Chander Bhan Saini,
aged about 24 years as under:-
That 3 weeks ago from the date of registration of
FIR i.e. 20.10.2023 at your house (identity withheld)
within the jurisdiction of PS Swaroop Nagar you
used criminal force to survivor “K” (full particulars
are mentioned in the police report under section 173
Signature Not Verified
CRL.A. 209/2025 Page 3 of 25
Signed By:BHARTI
Signing Date:28.10.2026
17:32:59
of Cr.P.C. already supplied to you), aged about 07
years, intending to outrage her or knowing it to be
likely that her modesty will be outraged and lying
with her and thus you thereby committed an offence
punishable u/s 354A/354 IPC and within the
cognizance of this court.
Secondly, during the aforesaid period you removed
the undergarments of survivor 'K' and thus you
thereby committed an offence punishable u/s 354B
IPC and within the cognizance of this court.
Thirdly, during the aforesaid period, you being
maternal uncle of survivor “K”, aged below 12
years, committed sexual assault and thus you
thereby committed an offence defined u/s 9(m) (n)
r/w Section 10 POCSO Act and within the
cognizance of this court.
Fourthly, during the aforesaid period, you
committed criminal intimidation by threatening the
survivor “K” to kill her, if she disclosed the incident
to anyone and thus you thereby committed an
offence punishable u/s 506 IPC and within the
cognizance of this Court.
And I hereby direct that you be tried by this Court
on the said charges.”
9. In order to substantiate its case, the prosecution examined six
witnesses. The relevant portions of their testimonies, as recorded before
the learned Trial Court, are reproduced hereunder:
Witness
es
Statement In Chief
Examination
Statement In Cross
Examination
PW- 1
CHILD
VICTIM
‘K’
Mera birthday 7th June ko
aata hain. Naani gai thi
bazar. Mama aaye, mama ne
naani se bola ki chhole
bhature le aao. Naani ne
kaha ki tum khud le aao.
Mere school ki chhutti 12:30
baje hoti hain. Ghatna wale
din main school gai thi.
Q. Chhole bhature wale ki
shop subha lagti hai ya shaam
Signature Not Verified
CRL.A. 209/2025 Page 4 of 25
Signed By:BHARTI
Signing Date:28.10.2026
17:32:59
Mama ne kaha ki nahi laai to
TV fod dunga. Fir mama ne
meri kachhi uttar di aur mere
upper late gaye. Mama ne
apni susu mere yaha lagai thi
ko?
Ans. Budh bazar mein lagti
hai aur raat ko lagti hain.
Mujhe time dekhna nahi aata.
Mere mama bahar samose
banane jaate hain aur raat ko
12 ya 2 baje aate hain. Ghatna
wale din ghar mein sirf main
aur meri behan thi. vol. naani
bazar gai thi. Maine naani ko
mama ki ghatna ke baare mein
tabhi bata di thi. Main kabhi
bimar nahi hui thi. Meri naani
mujhe hospital le kar gai thi.
Maine doctor ko bata diya tha
ki mama ne chadhi utari thi
aur hamare upper chhad gaye
the.
( the survivor has pointed
towards her private part). Fir
naani ghar per aai to maine
naani ko bola ki 'mama
hamare upper chhad gaye
the'.
Court Question: Beta
'hamare' se aapka kya matlab
hain?
Ans. Main aur meri behan
"Y". Naani ne mama ko
dhamkaya tha. Naani ne
mama ko bola ki iske upper
kyon chhade, to mama ne
bola ki mai TV fod dunga. Fir
kuchh nahi hua tha. Jab
mama mere aur per behan 'Y'
ke upper lete to unhone apne
kapde uttar rakhhe the. Us
samay mama ne thodi daaru
pee rakhhi thi. Mama ne meri
susu wali jagah per apni susu
lagai thi. Jab main Naani aur
papa ke hospital gai thi to
maine Doctor ko sab sach
sach bata diya tha. Ye baat
pichhle saal ki hain. Main
pehle bhi ek baar court mein
aai thi aur mere Judge Sahab
Q. Beta aapko hospital kyon le
kar gaye the?
Ans. Mama hamare upper
chhad gaye the.
Ye baat sahi hai ki kuchh din
pehle mere papa aur mama ke
beech mein ladai hui thi aur
mere papa ne kaha tha ki Sonu
ko jail mein pakadwa denge.
Maine judge sahab ko jab
mere bayan diye the tab
sachhi baat batai thi. Wo
bayan maine apne aap se kahe
the.
XXX
Main apni naani ke paas
Signature Not Verified
CRL.A. 209/2025 Page 5 of 25
Signed By:BHARTI
Signing Date:28.10.2026
17:32:59
ke saamne bayan hue the.
bahut dino se reh rahi hun.
Mere mama shaam ko jab
ghar aate the to hamare liye
khane ki cheez laate the. Mere
mama hamare se pyar karte
the. Jab hum naani ke ghar
rehte the to mere mummy-
papa roz subha milne aate the.
Jab mama ne TV todne wali
baat kahi thi to us samay
pados se koi nahi aaya tha.
Jab mama ne hamare sath
galat harkat ki thi to uske
baad papa hume naani ke
ghar se le kar gaye the.
XXX
At this stage, an envelope
duly sealed with the seal of 'P'
is taken out from the judicial
file. Envelope is opened after
breaking the seal and it is
found containing proceedings
regarding recording of the
statement of the witness u/s
164 Cr. PC dated 21.10.2023.
Statement is shown and read
over to the witness, who
submits that this is the same
statement which she had
made before Judge Madam
and put her signatures at
point A. Statement is now Ex.
PW-1/A.
XXX
(The witness has correctly
identified the accused
through screen).
After seeing the accused the
survivor submits that, '
inhone hi galat kaam kiya
tha'.
PW-2
MATER
NAL
GRAND
MOTHE
R ‘V’
Jija saalon ki ladai ho gai
thi. Sat Narain guard ki
naukri karta hai aur wo Sonu
ko ek ghante ke liye apni
company mein kaam karne
ke liye bhej raha tha per
mera beta Sonu nahi gaya.
XXX XXX XXX by Ld. SPP for
the State.
Ye baat theek hai ki maine
police ko shikayat di thi, joki
Ex.PW2/A aur jis per point A
per mere signature hain.
Signature Not Verified
CRL.A. 209/2025 Page 6 of 25
Signed By:BHARTI
Signing Date:28.10.2026
17:32:59
Iss baat per dono ki ladai ho
gai aur Sonu ne apne Jija ko
4 belt maari. Uske baad Sat
Narain ne Sonu ko dhamki di
ki main tujhe buri tarah se
fasaunga.
Sat Narain survivor Y and K
ko hospital mein dawai
dilwane ke liye le kar gaya
tha. Survivor Y and K meri
beti ki ladkiyan hain. Waha
per Sat Narain ne dono
ladkiyon se jhooth bulwaya ki
Sonu ne unke kapde uttare the
aur ladkiyon ko cycle ka lalch
diya ki waha bhi aap aise hi
bolna. Usne meri beti ko bhi
dhamki di ki agar usne kuchh
bola to wo use bhi chhod kar
chala jayega.
PW-3
FATHER
OF THE
CHILD
VICITM
Mujhe taarikh yaad nahi hai.
Main apni betiyon ke sath joki
'Y' aur 'K' aur meri saas ke
sath dawai lene ke liye
Kaushik hospital mein gaye
the, kyonki meri betiyon aur
meri saas ki tabiyat karab thi.
Mere saamne kuchh nahi hua
jobi hua Doctor ke saamne
hua. Mujhe nahi pata kis
ladki ne muljim ke baare mein
doctor ko kya bataya
XXX XXX XXX by Ld. SPP for
the State
Ye kehna galat hai ki meri beti
K ne doctor sahab ko bataya
ki karib 3 hafte pehle wo apni
behan Y ke sath kamre mein
raat ko so rahi thi aur uske
baad uske mama Sonu ghar
per sharab pee kar aaye the
aur us samay uski Naani
market gai hui thi aur muljim
Sonu uske kamre mein aa
gaya. Usne apne kapde utaar
diye aur 'K' ke bhi kapde utaar
diye. Muljim Sonu ne apni
Signature Not Verified
CRL.A. 209/2025 Page 7 of 25
Signed By:BHARTI
Signing Date:28.10.2026
17:32:59
susu wali jagah uski susu wali
jagah per ragdi, uske baad
uski naani waha per aa gai,
wo muljim Sonu per chillai
aur fir muljim waha se bhag
gaya. Us samay meri beti ne
apni Naani ko kuchh nahi
bataya tha.
(confronted with portion A to
A1 of Mark X, wherein it is so
recorded).
Ye kehna galat hai ki meri
beti 'K' ne mere saamne
uprokt saari baatein apni
naani ko batai aur ki
बताया
uske mama Sonu ne uske sath
pehle bhi bad touch kiya tha
aur uske baad lady police
waha aa gai aur Mahila Ayog
ne madam bulwai aur jisne
mere sath aur saas 'V' ke sath
baat cheet kari.
(confronted with portion B to
B1 of Mark X, wherein it is so
recorded).
Ye kehna galat hai ki muljim
ne mujhe koi lobh, lalach,
rishwat aadi di ho, isiliye
maine aaj muljim ke khilaf
gawahi nahi di. Ye kehna
galat hai ki main aaj court
mein jhoothi gawahi de rahi
hun aur sach baat nahi bata
Signature Not Verified
CRL.A. 209/2025 Page 8 of 25
Signed By:BHARTI
Signing Date:28.10.2026
17:32:59
rahi hun.
10. Apart from the aforesaid oral evidence, the prosecution relied upon
the complaint Ex.PW2/A, the statement of the child victim recorded under
Section 164 CrPC, the medical record Ex.PW4/A, the documents
pertaining to her age and the other documents exhibited during trial.
11. Upon conclusion of the prosecution evidence, the statement of the
appellant was recorded under Section 313 CrPC on 26.07.2024, wherein
the incriminating circumstances appearing against him were put to him.
The appellant denied the allegations and claimed false implication.
Although he initially expressed his intention to lead defence evidence, no
witness was examined on his behalf. The defence evidence was closed on
26.09.2024.
12. After considering the evidence on record and the submissions
advanced by the parties, the learned Trial Court, vide judgment dated
14.11.2024, convicted the appellant for the offences punishable under
Sections 354, 354A, 354B and 506(1) IPC, and Sections 9(m) and 9(n),
punishable under Section 10 of the POCSO Act.
13. Thereafter, vide order on sentence dated 19.12.2024, the learned
Trial Court sentenced the appellant as follows:
“16. Keeping in view the submissions by all
concerned and also keeping in view the facts of the
present case and also well settled proposition of
law, Convict is sentenced to undergo rigorous
imprisonment of 04 (Four) years and a fine of
Rs.2,000/- for the offence U/S 354 IPC and in
default of payment of fine, he shall further undergo
the simple imprisonment for fifteen days.
Signature Not Verified
CRL.A. 209/2025 Page 9 of 25
Signed By:BHARTI
Signing Date:28.10.2026
17:32:59
17. Convict is further sentenced to undergo rigorous
imprisonment of 03 (Three) years and a fine of
Rs.2,000/- for the offence U/S 354 A IPC and in
default of payment of fine, he shall further undergo
the simple imprisonment for fifteen days.
18. Convict is further sentenced to undergo rigorous
imprisonment of 03 (Three) years and a fine of
Rs.2,000/- for the offence U/S 354 B IPC and in
default of payment of fine, he shall further undergo
the simple imprisonment for fifteen days.
19. Convict is further sentenced to undergo rigorous
imprisonment of 02 (Two) years and a fine of
Rs.2,000/- for the offence U/S 506(I) IPC and in
default of payment of fine, he shall further undergo
the simple imprisonment for fifteen days.
20. Convict is further sentenced to undergo rigorous
imprisonment of 06 (Six) years and a fine of
Rs.3,000/- for the offence U/S 9(m) (n) of the
POCSO Act, 2012 punishable U/S 10 of POCSO
Act, 2012 and in default of payment of fine, he shall
further undergo the simple imprisonment for fifteen
days.
21. Convict shall be entitled to the benefit U/S 428
CrPC. All the substantive
punishments/imprisonments shall run concurrently.
Fine imposed as above shall be paid to the survivor.
Order on compensation:-
22. Perusal of record shows that VIR has not been
filed in the present case by the DLSA (North) inter-
alia stating that the family of survivor has refused
the compesation from the authority.
23. In view thereof there is no requirement of
passing an order on compensation to the survivor.”
14. In default of payment of fine, the appellant was directed to undergo
simple imprisonment for fifteen days in respect of each offence. All the
Signature Not Verified
CRL.A. 209/2025 Page 10 of 25
Signed By:BHARTI
Signing Date:28.10.2026
17:32:59
substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently, with the benefit
of Section 428 CrPC.
15. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction dated 14.11.2024 and
order on sentence dated 19.12.2024, the appellant has preferred the present
appeal.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT:
16. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that
the material inconsistencies exist between the statements of PW-1
recorded under Sections 161 and 164 CrPC and her deposition before the
learned Trial Court. While in her statement under Section 161 CrPC, she
alleged that the appellant had come home in an intoxicated condition,
touched her private parts and attempted to insert his private part into hers,
no such attempt was alleged in her statement under Section 164 CrPC.
However, during her examination-in-chief, she reiterated the allegation of
an attempted insertion. Further, the presence of her sister during the
incident was introduced for the first time in her deposition before the
learned Trial Court.
17. It is further contended that PW-1 gave inconsistent accounts
regarding disclosure of the incident to her maternal grandmother. While
she stated under Section 161 CrPC that she had not disclosed the incident,
during trial she deposed that she had informed her grandmother
immediately upon her return. According to learned counsel, these
contradictions were material and could not have been disregarded as minor
discrepancies.
18. Learned counsel submits that the learned Trial Court erred in
Signature Not Verified
CRL.A. 209/2025 Page 11 of 25
Signed By:BHARTI
Signing Date:28.10.2026
17:32:59
concluding, in paragraph 11.17 of the impugned judgment, that PW-1 had
substantiated the allegations of sexual assault. It is argued that her
statement under Section 164 CrPC did not disclose any overt sexual act
and, therefore, the ingredients of Section 7 of the POCSO Act were not
established beyond reasonable doubt. The finding in paragraph 11.19 that
the contradictions were minor is also assailed on the ground that the
improvements concerned the alleged act itself.
19. It is also contended that the conviction under Section 506(1) IPC is
unsustainable, as PW-1 did not allege that the appellant had threatened to
cause injury to her in the event of disclosure of the incident. Thus,
according to learned counsel, the ingredients of criminal intimidation were
not established.
20. Learned counsel further submits that PW-2, the complainant and
maternal grandmother of the child victim, did not support the prosecution
case. She deposed that an altercation had taken place between the
appellant and the child's father, who had threatened to falsely implicate
the appellant. She also alleged that the father had induced the children to
make false allegations by promising them a bicycle. It is pointed out that
PW-1 herself admitted during cross-examination that her father had
quarrelled with the appellant and threatened to send him to jail.
21. It is submitted that the learned Trial Court failed to appreciate the
alleged motive for false implication. PW-2 had stated in her earlier
statements that she learnt of the incident only upon the child's disclosure
to the doctor at Burari Hospital, whereas PW-1 deposed that she had
informed her grandmother immediately after the incident. Learned
Signature Not Verified
CRL.A. 209/2025 Page 12 of 25
Signed By:BHARTI
Signing Date:28.10.2026
17:32:59
counsel also relies upon PW-1's admission that the appellant was
affectionate towards her and her sister and would bring them food,
contending that these circumstances cast doubt upon the prosecution
version.
22. Learned counsel further submits that PW-3, the father of the child
victim, also did not support the prosecution case. He stated that no incident
had occurred in his presence and that he was unaware of what his
daughters had disclosed to the doctor. He also denied the suggestion that
PW-1 had narrated the incident to her grandmother in his presence. It is,
therefore, contended that the prosecution version finds no support from
the testimonies of PW-2 and PW-3.
23. The investigation is also assailed on the ground that the
Investigating Officer failed to record the statement of the sister of PW-1,
despite the allegation that she was present during the incident and had also
been subjected to the appellant's acts. She was neither cited as a
prosecution witness nor treated as a victim, which, according to learned
counsel, constitutes a material investigative lapse.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS:
24. Per contra , learned APP appearing on behalf of the State submits
that the child victim clearly identified the appellant, who is her maternal
uncle, and narrated the acts committed by him. It is contended that the
discrepancies pointed out by the defence are minor in nature and do not
affect the substance of her testimony. It is further submitted that the failure
of PW-2 and PW-3 to support the prosecution case does not, by itself,
Signature Not Verified
CRL.A. 209/2025 Page 13 of 25
Signed By:BHARTI
Signing Date:28.10.2026
17:32:59
render the testimony of PW-1 unreliable.
25. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 2, the child
victim, adopts the submissions advanced on behalf of the State and further
submits that the age of the child victim, being approximately seven years
at the time of the incident, stands established through the school records
and birth certificate admitted by the appellant under Section 294 CrPC. It
is contended that the medical history recorded in MLC Ex.PW4/A
substantially corroborates the account subsequently given by PW-1 before
the learned Trial Court.
26. It is further submitted that PW-1's testimony remained consistent
on the essential aspects of the incident and that the alleged variations in
her previous statements do not undermine her credibility. Reliance is
placed upon State of Himachal Pradesh v. Sanjay Kumar @ Sunny,
(2017) 2 SCC 51 , to contend that the testimony of a victim of sexual
assault, if found trustworthy, is sufficient to sustain a conviction and that
minor discrepancies or delay in reporting the incident cannot, by
themselves, justify its rejection.
27. Learned counsel for respondent No. 2 also disputes the plea of false
implication, submitting that the alleged previous dispute between the
appellant and the father of the child victim does not establish that the
allegations were fabricated. It is contended that PW-2's subsequent
departure from her earlier complaint cannot discredit the independent
testimony of PW-1, particularly when PW-2 herself had initially
approached the police and her presence at the hospital is reflected in the
medical record.
Signature Not Verified
CRL.A. 209/2025 Page 14 of 25
Signed By:BHARTI
Signing Date:28.10.2026
17:32:59
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
28. This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
material available on record.
29. The principal contention raised on behalf of the appellant is that the
learned Trial Court erred in placing reliance upon the testimony of PW-1
the child victim, particularly when PW-2, her maternal grandmother and
PW-3-her father, did not support the prosecution case. It is further
contended that the testimony of PW-1 suffers from material contradictions
and improvements, rendering her version unreliable.
30. At the outset, it is necessary to reiterate that the testimony of a
victim of sexual assault, if found reliable and trustworthy, is sufficient to
sustain a conviction even in the absence of independent corroboration.
In Ganesan v. State of Tamil Nadu MANU/SC/0763/2020 , the Supreme
Court held that the testimony of the victim cannot be discarded merely
because another material witness, including a close family member, has
not supported the prosecution case. The relevant observations of the
Supreme Court are reproduced hereunder:
“11. In State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh,
MANU/SC/0366/1996 : (1996) 2 SCC 384, this
Court held that in cases involving sexual
harassment, molestation, etc. the court is duty-
bound to deal with such cases with utmost
sensitivity. Minor contradictions or insignificant
discrepancies in the statement of a prosecutrix
should not be a ground for throwing out an
otherwise reliable prosecution case. Evidence of the
victim of sexual assault is enough for conviction and
it does not require any corroboration unless there
are compelling reasons for seeking corroboration.
Signature Not Verified
CRL.A. 209/2025 Page 15 of 25
Signed By:BHARTI
Signing Date:28.10.2026
17:32:59
The court may look for some assurances of her
statement to satisfy judicial conscience. The
statement of the prosecutrix is more reliable than
that of an injured witness as she is not an
accomplice. The Court further held that the delay in
filing FIR for sexual offence may not be even
properly explained, but if found natural, the
Accused cannot be given any benefit thereof. The
Court observed as under: (SCC pp. 394-96 & 403,
paras 8 & 21)”
31. Similarly, in State of Himachal Pradesh v. Sanjay Kumar (supra)
the Supreme Court reiterated that the evidence of a victim of sexual assault
stands on its own footing and that a conviction may rest upon such
testimony if it inspires confidence. The relevant observations are
reproduced hereunder:
“30. By no means, it is suggested that whenever
such charge of rape is made, where the victim is a
child, it has to be treated as a gospel truth and the
accused person has to be convicted. We have
already discussed above the manner in which the
testimony of the prosecutrix is to be examined and
analysed in order to find out the truth therein and to
ensure that deposition of the victim is trustworthy.
At the same time, after taking all due precautions
which are necessary, when it is found that the
prosecution version is worth believing, the case is to
be dealt with all sensitivity that is needed in such
cases. In such a situation one has to take stock of the
realities of life as well. Various studies show that in
more than 80% cases of such abuses, perpetrators
have acquaintance with the victims who are not
strangers. The danger is more within than outside.
Most of the time, acquaintance rapes, when the
Signature Not Verified
CRL.A. 209/2025 Page 16 of 25
Signed By:BHARTI
Signing Date:28.10.2026
17:32:59
culprit is a family member, are not even reported for
various reasons, not difficult to fathom. The
strongest among those is the fear of attracting social
stigma. Another deterring factor which many times
prevents such victims or their families to lodge a
complaint is that they find whole process of criminal
justice system extremely intimidating coupled with
absence of victim protection mechanism. Therefore,
time is ripe to bring about significant reforms in the
criminal justice system as well. Equally, there is
also a dire need to have a survivor-centric approach
towards victims of sexual violence, particularly, the
children, keeping in view the traumatic long-lasting
effects on such victims.
32. After thorough analysis of all relevant and
attendant factors, we are of the opinion that none of
the grounds, on which the High Court has cleared
the respondent, has any merit. By now it is well
settled that the testimony of a victim in cases of
sexual offences is vital and unless there are
compelling reasons which necessitate looking for
corroboration of a statement, the courts should find
no difficulty to act on the testimony of the victim of
a sexual assault alone to convict the accused. No
doubt, her testimony has to inspire confidence.
Seeking corroboration to a statement before relying
upon the same as a rule, in such cases, would
literally amount to adding insult to injury. The
deposition of the prosecutrix has, thus, to be taken
as a whole. Needless to reiterate that the victim of
rape is not an accomplice and her evidence can be
acted upon without corroboration. She stands at a
higher pedestal than an injured witness does. If the
court finds it difficult to accept her version, it may
seek corroboration from some evidence which lends
assurance to her version. To insist on
corroboration, except in the rarest of rare cases, is
Signature Not Verified
CRL.A. 209/2025 Page 17 of 25
Signed By:BHARTI
Signing Date:28.10.2026
17:32:59
to equate one who is a victim of the lust of another
with an accomplice to a crime and thereby insult
womanhood. It would be adding insult to injury to
tell a woman that her claim of rape will not be
believed unless it is corroborated in material
particulars, as in the case of an accomplice to a
crime. Why should the evidence of the girl or the
woman who complains of rape or sexual
molestation be viewed with the aid of spectacles
fitted with lenses tinged with doubt, disbelief or
suspicion? The plea about lack of corroboration has
no substance (See Bhupinder Sharma v. State of
H.P. [Bhupinder Sharma v. State of H.P., (2003) 8
SCC 551 : 2004 SCC (Cri) 31] ). Notwithstanding
this legal position, in the instant case, we even find
enough corroborative material as well, which is
discussed hereinabove.”
33. In light of the aforesaid principles, the testimony of PW-1 is
required to be examined independently. The mere fact that PW-2 and PW-
3 did not support the prosecution case cannot, by itself, furnish a ground
for discarding her evidence. What is material is whether the account given
by PW-1 is credible and whether the discrepancies pointed out by the
defence affect the substance of the prosecution case.
34. In the present case, PW-1 was approximately seven years of age at
the time of the incident. Before recording her testimony, the learned Trial
Court satisfied itself that she was capable of understanding the questions
put to her and giving rational answers. During her examination-in-chief,
PW-1 identified the appellant as her maternal uncle and narrated that,
while her grandmother had gone to the market, the appellant removed her
undergarment, lay upon her and brought his private part into contact with
Signature Not Verified
CRL.A. 209/2025 Page 18 of 25
Signed By:BHARTI
Signing Date:28.10.2026
17:32:59
hers. She also identified the appellant during her deposition and stated that
he was the person who had committed the alleged act.
35. A perusal of her cross-examination reveals that PW-1 remained
consistent regarding the identity of the appellant and the essential nature
of the occurrence. She reiterated that the appellant had removed her
undergarment and lain upon her. Although she admitted that an altercation
had taken place between her father and the appellant, she maintained that
the statement made by her before the Magistrate was true and had been
given voluntarily. Nothing material could be elicited during her cross-
examination so as to discredit her account of the incident.
36. Learned counsel for the appellant has placed considerable emphasis
upon the differences between the statements of PW-1 recorded under
Sections 161 and 164 CrPC and her deposition before the learned Trial
Court. These differences primarily relate to the manner in which the
incident was described, the presence of her sister and the stage at which
the incident was disclosed to her grandmother. This Court has considered
the said discrepancies. However, having regard to the age of PW-1 and the
nature of the incident narrated by her, the variations do not appear to be of
such magnitude as to render her entire testimony doubtful. The essential
allegation concerning the conduct of the appellant has remained
substantially consistent.
37. It must also be borne in mind that PW-1 was a child of tender age
when the incident allegedly occurred. A child of such age cannot be
expected to narrate an incident with the same degree of precision on every
occasion. Minor variations in the manner of narration, particularly when
Signature Not Verified
CRL.A. 209/2025 Page 19 of 25
Signed By:BHARTI
Signing Date:28.10.2026
17:32:59
the statements are recorded at different stages, cannot be treated as
material contradictions unless they affect the core of the prosecution case.
In the present case, the discrepancies pointed out by the appellant do not
dislodge the material particulars of the occurrence narrated by PW-1.
38. The testimony of PW-1 also finds support in the medical record. It
is borne out from the record that on 20.10.2023, PW-1 was taken to Burari
Hospital, where her MLC, Ex.PW4/A, was prepared. The medical history
recorded therein refers to the allegation of sexual assault against the
appellant, who was identified as the maternal uncle of the child victim. At
this stage, it would be apposite to reproduce the relevant portion of the
MLC:
“ Brief Description of the Incident
A/H/o sexual assault by her uncle 3 weeks back
named Sonu 23/M who resides in same house with
Signature Not Verified
CRL.A. 209/2025 Page 20 of 25
Signed By:BHARTI
Signing Date:28.10.2026
17:32:59
victim Komal 7 year old girl child (resides in C
Block Nathupura).
As per history given by the victim and grand mother
Vimlesh (48Y), grandmother went outside to market.
The child was sleeping in room. Sonu was drank,
came inside room and undressed himself and
removed Komal's lower cloths including panties and
touched her buttocks and rubbed with his penis. No
history of ejaculation and penetration. As soon as
grandmother came and saw him in underwear she
started shouting at him. He get up and dressed
himself went outside. As per victim history same
sexual abuse incidence happened before also. ”
39. A perusal of the aforesaid medical history shows that the allegations
concerning the appellant had been disclosed at the hospital, much before
PW-1 was examined before the learned Trial Court. PW-4, Dr. Neeraj,
also proved the MLC and deposed that the history of sexual assault against
the appellant was recorded therein. Although the medical history cannot,
by itself, be treated as proof of the occurrence, it lends assurance to the
testimony of PW-1, particularly when her account before the learned Trial
Court is considered in its entirety.
40. Coming to the testimony of PW-2, the maternal grandmother of the
child victim, it is not disputed that she did not support the prosecution case
during trial. She attributed the allegations to a previous dispute between
the appellant and the father of PW-1. However, during her cross-
examination by the learned Special Public Prosecutor, PW-2 admitted that
she had made a complaint to the police, Ex.PW2/A, and acknowledged
her signatures thereon. The relevant portion of the complaint is reproduced
hereunder:
Signature Not Verified
CRL.A. 209/2025 Page 21 of 25
Signed By:BHARTI
Signing Date:28.10.2026
17:32:59
Good touch
“जबवहाँपरडा Èटर साहबनेकोमलसे
Bad touch
और केबारेमेजानकार ȣ होनेकेबारेमेपूछा
" Good touch Bad touch
तो कोमलने और केबारेमेप
Doctor
ताहै।औरकोमलने साहबकोबताया ͩक कर ȣ
3
ब ह Ýते पहलेजबवहअपनीबहनय ͧशका केसाथक
मरेमेरातकेसमयजबवहअपनीबहनकेसाथसोरह ȣ
थीतबउसकेमामासोनूकमरेमेआगयेवअपनेकप
ड़ेउतार Ǒदए वमेरेभीकपड़ेउतार Ǒदये थेऔरमेर ȣ कम
रपरअपनीसुसुरगड़नेलगे।वअपनीसुसुमेर ȣ सुसुपर
लगानेलगाउसकेबादनानीवहाँआगयीवमेरेमामा
पर ͬचãलाने लगी।म ɇने डरकेकारण ͩकसी
कोकुछभी
"
नह ȣ बतायाथा। ȣ
इसकेबादकोमलनेमुझेभीयेसार
hospital
बाते मेबताईऔरबताया ͩक
मेरेमामासोनूने
touch
उसकेसाथपहलेभीऐसाबैड ͩकया था।इसके
Police Hospital
बाद मेह ȣ आगयीवम Ǒहला आयोग
क ȧ Ǒहला आयोगवाल ȣ मैडमके
मैडमबुलवायीआपनेम
सामनेमेराबयानदज [ͩकया ȣ ना
जोमेरेबेटेसोनूनेमेर
Ǔत कोमलकेसाथगलतकाम ͩकया हैमेरेबेटेसोनूके
”
ͨखलाफ कानूनीकाय [वाहȣ क ȧ जाये।
41. The complaint records that the child victim, while at the hospital,
disclosed the alleged acts committed by the appellant approximately three
weeks earlier. It also refers to the circumstances in which the child came
to be examined at the hospital. Though PW-2 subsequently did not support
the prosecution case, the mere fact that she resiled from her earlier version
cannot be a ground to reject the independent testimony of PW-1.
Signature Not Verified
CRL.A. 209/2025 Page 22 of 25
Signed By:BHARTI
Signing Date:28.10.2026
17:32:59
42. Insofar as PW-3 is concerned, he was admittedly not an eyewitness
to the occurrence. His testimony that nothing had happened in his presence
does not directly contradict the account given by PW-1. Thus, the failure
of PW-2 and PW-3 to support the prosecution does not, by itself, render
the evidence of the child victim unreliable.
43. Having considered the testimony of PW-1, the medical history
recorded at the hospital and the evidence of PW-2 and PW-3, this Court
finds that the material discrepancies pointed out by the appellant do not
discredit the central account given by PW-1. The learned Trial Court has
considered the evidence in its entirety and no ground is made out for
interference with its findings on the credibility of the child victim.
44. The plea of false implication arising out of the previous altercation
between the appellant and PW-3 has also been considered. PW-1 admitted
during cross-examination that a quarrel had taken place between her father
and the appellant and that her father had threatened to send the appellant
to jail. However, the existence of such a dispute does not necessarily
establish that the child victim was tutored to make false allegations. PW-
1 maintained that she had made her statement before the learned
Magistrate voluntarily and had narrated the truth. In the absence of
material sufficient to discredit her testimony, the previous dispute cannot,
by itself, furnish a ground for rejecting her account.
45. The appellant has further questioned the investigation on the ground
that the sister of PW-1 was not examined, despite her alleged presence at
the time of the incident. While the examination of the victim’s sister could
have provided additional evidence, the omission to examine her does not
Signature Not Verified
CRL.A. 209/2025 Page 23 of 25
Signed By:BHARTI
Signing Date:28.10.2026
17:32:59
necessarily render the prosecution case doubtful. The prosecution is not
required to examine every person stated to have been present at the scene,
provided the evidence adduced is otherwise sufficient to establish the
occurrence. In the present case, PW-1 has herself narrated the incident and
has been subjected to cross-examination. The omission pointed out by the
appellant does not materially affect the reliability of her testimony.
46. Upon an overall appreciation of the evidence, this Court finds that
PW-1 has remained consistent on the material particulars concerning the
identity of the appellant and the acts attributed to him. Her testimony is
natural and inspires confidence. The discrepancies relied upon by the
defence do not affect the substratum of the prosecution case. The medical
history recorded at the hospital provides further assurance to her account.
The fact that PW-2 and PW-3 did not support the prosecution does not, in
these circumstances, render the testimony of PW-1 unworthy of reliance.
47. The learned Trial Court has considered the evidence of PW-1 in the
light of the contradictions pointed out by the defence and the testimonies
of PW-2 and PW-3. This Court finds no perversity or material infirmity in
its appreciation of the evidence concerning the occurrence. The appellant
has failed to demonstrate any ground warranting interference with the
findings of the learned Trial Court on the credibility of the child victim.
CONCLUSION
48. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court finds that the
testimony of PW-1, the child victim, is cogent, reliable and inspires
confidence. The discrepancies pointed out by the appellant do not affect
the substratum of the prosecution case. Merely because PW-2 and PW-3
Signature Not Verified
CRL.A. 209/2025 Page 24 of 25
Signed By:BHARTI
Signing Date:28.10.2026
17:32:59
did not support the prosecution, the testimony of PW-1 cannot be
discarded, particularly when her account has remained consistent on
material particulars and finds support in the medical history recorded at
the hospital. The learned Trial Court has duly appreciated the evidence on
record, and this Court finds no perversity or infirmity in the findings
returned by it warranting interference in appeal.
49. Accordingly, the present appeal stands dismissed. The judgment of
conviction dated 14.11.2024 and order on sentence dated 19.12.2024
passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTSC-POCSO), North
District, Rohini Courts, Delhi, in Sessions Case No. 847/2023, arising out
of FIR No. 667/2023 registered at Police Station Swaroop Nagar, are
hereby upheld.
50. Pending application(s), if any, also stand(s) disposed of.
51. A copy of this judgment be sent to the learned Trial Court and the
concerned Jail Superintendent for necessary information and compliance.
MADHU JAIN
(JUDGE)
OCTOBER 28, 2026/P
Signature Not Verified
CRL.A. 209/2025 Page 25 of 25
Signed By:BHARTI
Signing Date:28.10.2026
17:32:59