J P vs State (Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi) & Anr.
- Court
- Delhi High Court
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
th
Reserved on: 12 October 2026
Date of Decision: 02.11.2026
Uploaded on: 02.11.2026
# CNR No. DLHC010213362025
+ CRL.A. 502/2025 & CRL.M.(BAIL) 2511/2025
J.P .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Shivek Trehan, Adv. (DHCLSC)
with Mr. Akash Chandna, Adv.
versus
STATE (GOVT. of NCT OF DELHI) & ANR. ....Respondents
Through: Mr. Amarlal, Ms. Aryma Sharma and
Ms. Gauri Kumar, Advs. for victim.
CORAM:
HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE MADHU JAIN
JUDGMENT
1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode
2. By way of the present appeal filed under Section 415(2) read with
Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter,
“BNSS”), the appellant is seeking setting aside of the judgment dated
06.12.2024 and the order on sentence dated 07.02.2025 passed by the learned
ASJ-06 (POCSO), West District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, in connection with
FIR No. 471/2022 , for the offences punishable under Sections 376 of the Indian
Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’) & Section 6 of the Protection of
Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter, “POCSO Act”)
Signature Not Verified
CRL.A. 502/2025 Page 1 of 28
Signed By:BHARTI
Signing Date:02.11.2026
18:32:09
registered at Police Station Tilak Nagar, Delhi.
3. By way of the impugned judgment dated 06.12.2024, the
accused/Appellant (hereinafter ‘Appellant’) was convicted of the charges under
Section 6 of the POCSO Act, on the ground that the accused was not able to
explain his defence of false implication and the Prosecution had been able to
discharge its burden to prove its case against the Appellant beyond all
reasonable doubt. The conclusion of the learned Trial Court is set out below:
“71. In the present case, the accused has failed to
offer any plausible explanation of his defence of
false implication in the present case by the
prosecution witnesses even at the cost of facing
ignominy and embarrassment for the victim, who
was a minor at the time of commission of the offence.
Thus, the defence taken by the accused does not
inspire any confidence in the absence of specific
details thereof and appears to be vague, sham and
without any merits.
XXXX
74. Therefore, in view of the totality of evidence and
the facts and circumstances discussed above, I am
of the view that the prosecution has successfully
established its case against the accused Jai
Prakash. The accused Jai Prakash, is hereby held
guilty of offences U/s 6 of the POCSO Act and
convicted for the said offence. ”
Factual Matrix:
4. The case of the prosecution arises out of an incident alleged to have
occurred in November 2021. The child victim, ‘J’, was born on 15.10.2018 and
was approximately three years of age at the time when the present incident
occurred. The appellant is the father of the child. As per the prosecution, PW-
3, the mother of the child, had gone out for household work and, upon returning,
Signature Not Verified
CRL.A. 502/2025 Page 2 of 28
Signed By:BHARTI
Signing Date:02.11.2026
18:32:09
found the child crying. On making inquiries, the child disclosed that the
appellant had put his finger into her private part.
5. It is further the case of the prosecution that PW-3 questioned the
appellant regarding the incident, whereupon he stated that he had been joking.
PW-3 deposed that she noticed bleeding from the child’s private part and
applied ointment. She further alleged that the appellant threatened her and said
that if she told anyone about the incident, then the appellant would not spare
their lives and thereafter left for his native village at Azamgarh, Uttar Pradesh.
6. On 20.06.2022, a PCR call was received at Police Station Tilak Nagar
regarding the alleged sexual assault of the child by her father. The child was
taken for medical examination to Deen Dayal Upadhyay Hospital. Her
mother’s statement was recorded, and the present FIR was registered. During
investigation, the statements of the child and her mother were recorded under
Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter, “CrPC”).
7. The date of birth of the child was verified, and the appellant was arrested
on 23.06.2022 from his native village. During investigation, a police team
comprising SI Ramkesh, HC Subhash and Ct. Dinesh went to Azamgarh and
on 23.06.2022, the accused Jai Prakash was arrested from his native village and
brought to PS Tilak Nagar. After getting the accused medically examined, he
was produced before the concerned Court and remanded to judicial custody.
Upon completion of the investigation, the charge-sheet was filed before the
concerned court. Vide order dated 14.02.2023, the learned Trial Court framed
charges under Section 6 of the POCSO Act. The appellant pleaded not guilty
and claimed trial.
8. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined ten witnesses. The
Signature Not Verified
CRL.A. 502/2025 Page 3 of 28
Signed By:BHARTI
Signing Date:02.11.2026
18:32:09
evidence of each witness, as captured by the learned Trial Court has been
reproduced hereinbelow:
“8. PW-I Ms. 'J' is the child victim, who deposed as
under:-
"Q. Aapke papa kaise hai; achhe hai ya gande?
A. Mere papa gande hai
Q. Kyu, unhone kya kiya tha?
A. Mere papa ne susu khodi thi. Meri shirt utari thi;
pant nahin uttari thi. Mere kapde uttare thei.
At this stage, the victim has pointed towards her
vagina and stated that papa ne yahan ungli daali
thi; aur unhone mujhse kaha ki zehar kha ke marr
jayo. Main apne papa ke saath akeli thi neeche room
me.
Aisa papa ne 02 baar kiya tha.
Meri susu me dard bhi hui tha. Phir maine mummy
ko bataya tha.
Q. Aapke papa ne ye sab kab kiya tha?
Court observation: Victim is not able to give a
proper answer to this question, due to her age.
Q. Do you have brothers/sisters?
A. No."
9. PW-1, Ms. J , further deposed that she was taken
to the hospital where she was medically examined
vide MLC dated 20.06.2022, which is Ex. PW 1/A.
PW-1 further deposed that she was produced before
Signature Not Verified
CRL.A. 502/2025 Page 4 of 28
Signed By:BHARTI
Signing Date:02.11.2026
18:32:09
a Lady Judge at Tis Hazari Court, who recorded her
statement U/s 164 Cr. PC, which is Ex. PW 1/B
(colly, 05 pages).
10. PW-2 Sh. Neeraj Panwar is the landlord of the
house where the child victim was residing. PW2
deposed that he is owner of the plot WZ-XX.X,
Chowkhandi Village, Tilak Nagar, New Delhi and
in October, 2021, he had given one room to Smt. K
and her husband Jai Prakash on rent as the husband
of Smt. K was suffering from paralysis and was
taking treatment from Jhajjar. The daughter of Smt.
K was also residing with them. They remained in the
said room for about 4-5 months. The abovesaid Smt.
K firstly took her husband from there and later on
she left the room without informing him. PW2
further deposed that later on, he came to know that
some incident had happened with the daughter of
Smt.K. PW2 deposed that he had not executed any
rent agreement as one of his other tenant had
introduced them to him as his Villagers.
11. PW-3 Smt. 'K' is the mother of the victim who
deposed as under:-
" ‘J’ .
मेरीबेटीकानाम है म œ िद ʟ ी म Ő अपनेपितजय
Ů काश (accused) काइलाजकरनेकेिलएजुलाई 2021
आयीथी . मेरेपितकोपैरािलिससहोगयाहैऔरइलाज
झ Ǒ र हरयाणासेचलरहाथा . म œ कामकरनेकेिलएगंगा
रामवािटकाम Ő एककोठीम Ő झाडू - पोछाकरनेजातीथी .
घटनामेरीबेटीकेसाथनव ɾ र 2021 म Ő धनतेरसकेिदन
Š ई थी . उसिदनम œ कामकरनेगयीथीअपनीबेटी ‘J’ को
. /accused
सुलाकर उसिदनमेरापित जय Ů काश घरपर
हीथाऔरम œ बाहरसेकु Ƿ ी लगाकरगयीथी . म œ काम
परजातीथीतोबाहरसेकु Ƿ ी लगाकरजातीथी Ɛ ोंिक
Signature Not Verified
CRL.A. 502/2025 Page 5 of 28
Signed By:BHARTI
Signing Date:02.11.2026
18:32:09
कोईमेरीबेटीजोब Š त छोटीहैऔरमेरेपितकोकोई
देखनेवालानहींथा . (to look after).
जबम œ धनतेरसकेिदनअपनेकामकरकेघरवािपस
आयीथीतोमेरीबेटी ' ज ' रोरहीथी . जबम œ बेटीकोदूध
.
िपलानेलगीतोवोदूधनहींपीरहीथीऔरवोरोरहीथी
मेरेपूछनेपरमेरीबेटी ' ज ' नेमुझेबतायाकीपापानेमेरे
सुसुम Ő खोदा , खोदासेमेरामतलबहैऊँगलीडाली . जब
म œने देखातोमेरीबेटीकेसुसुकरनेवालीजगहपरथोड़ी
सी ɰ ीिडंग (bleeding) थी .
जबम œने मु İ ʏ म जय Ů काश सेपुछातोउसनेहसते Š ए
.
बोलाकीम œ मजाककररहाथा म œने जय Ů काश कीमाँ
कोफ़ोनिकयाऔरउससेभीबताया . इसकेबादजय
Ů काश नेमुझेधमकीदीकीम œ कुछभीकरसकता Š और
तुझेऔरतेरीबेटीकोमरवाभीसकता Š |
म œ ब Š त डरगयीथीऔरडरकेकारणम œने मु İ ʏ म जय
Ů काश कोबसम Ő बैठािदयातािकवोगाँवजासके . म œने
बेटीकाइलाजभीनहींकरवायाथा .
म œ अपनीबेटीकोकहीभीनहींलेकरगयीथी Ɛ ोंिक मुझे
डरलगताथाऔरमेरीबेटीबतादेतीथीकीउसकेसाथ
Ɛ ाŠ आ . म œने तभीबतायाजबमेरीबेटीकोसुसुकरनेम Ő
06 .
दद Ŋ होनेलगाघटनाकेकरीब महीनेबाद
म œ अपनीबेटीको Din Dayal हॉ İ ˙ टल लेकरगयीथी
इलाजकेिलएऔरहॉ İ ˙ टल सेहीम œने पुिलसकोफ़ोन
|
िकया पुिलसवहाँपरआयीऔरमुझसेऔरमेरीबेटीसे
पूछताछकी |
घटनाकेसमयमेरीबेटीकीउ Ų 03 सालथी | पुिलसने
.
मेरेबयानिलखेथे
Signature Not Verified
CRL.A. 502/2025 Page 6 of 28
Signed By:BHARTI
Signing Date:02.11.2026
18:32:09
12. PW3 Smt. K identified her thumb impression at
point A. upon her statement Ex.PW3/ A and deposed
that her daughter was medically examined vide
MLC already Ex.PWl/A bearing her thumb
impression at point A. PW3 Further deposed that
“ ” and
म œने पुिलसकोघटनावालीजगहिदखादीथी
identified her thumb impressions at point A on
site plan Ex.PW3/B. PW-2 further deposed that she
was also produced before a Lady Judge at Tis
Hazari Courts, who recorded her statement U/s 1 64
Cr.PC, which is Ex. PW3/C (colly. 04 pages). PW3
further deposed that she handed over the birth
certificate of her daughter to the police and the
same was seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW3/D. The
copy of the birth certificatehanded over by her to the
police is Ex.PW3/E.
PW-4 Dr. Naved H. Lone, Sr. Medical Officer, DDU
Hospital deposed that on 20.06.2022, one child
namely 'J' D/o Sh. 'JP', aged about 3 years female
was brought to the hospital by SI Meenu for her
medical examination under the history of pain in
perianal region, she gave history of sexual assault
by her father and child's mother also gave history of
sexual assault by her ( child's) father in November
2021. She was referred to a gynaecologist for
further examination. She was examined vide MLC
No.252 dated 20.06.2022 Ex. PWl/A bearing my
signature and stamp at point B. PW-4 further
deposed that on 24.06.2022, one person namely JP
S/o Sh. PC (accused), aged about 50 years male was
brought for medical examination. The said person
was medically examined vide MLC No.5557 dated
24.06.2022 which is Ex. PW4/A. The detailed
medical examination is mentioned in the above said
MLC and he opined that there is nothing to suggest
Signature Not Verified
CRL.A. 502/2025 Page 7 of 28
Signed By:BHARTI
Signing Date:02.11.2026
18:32:09
that the accused cannot do sexual act or sexual
intercourse.
14. PW-5 Dr. Richa Madan was deputed at the
place of Dr. Sabrina Sood who is stated to have left
the services of hospital. PWS deposed that Dr.
Sabrina Sood medically examined the child victim
vide MLC Ex.PWl/A.
15. PW-6 HC Kuldeep deposed that on 10.08.2022,
he was posted as Constable in PS Tilak Nagar. On
that day, on the instructions of IO, he went to
Phulpur, Azamgarh, UP and got the birth certificate
of child 'J' verified from the Registrar, Birth &
Death, and obtained the report upon the photocopy
of the said birth certificate, which is Ex.PW3/E. The
verification done on the certificate is at position X
to X on the document Ex.PW3/E.
16. PW-7 SI Ramkesh Meena deposed that on
23.06.2022, he was posted as SI in PS Tilak Nagar.
On that day, upon the instructions of the SHO, he
alongwith HC Subhash and Ct. Dinesh went to
Azamgarh, UP at the address provided by the
complainant in order to a1Test the accused.
Accused Jai Prakash was arrested at PS Didarganj,
Azamgarh, UP vide arrest memo Ex.PW? I A and
his personal search was conducted vide memo
Ex.PW7/B. Accused was brought to Delhi and his
custody was handed over to IO W/SJ Meenu.
Accused Jai Prakash was correctly identified by the
witness.
17. PW8 HC Vmod Kumar deposed that on
24.06.2022, he along with IO went to DDU Hospital
for medical examination of accused Jai Prakash.
After medical examination, IO collected the MLC of
the accused and brought the accused to Tis Hazari
Signature Not Verified
CRL.A. 502/2025 Page 8 of 28
Signed By:BHARTI
Signing Date:02.11.2026
18:32:09
Courts from where he was remanded to judicial
custody. Accused Jai Prakash was con-ectly
identified by the witness.
18. PW-9 Ct. Dinesh deposed that on 23.06.2022,
he was posted as SI in PS Tilak agar. On that day,
upon the instructions of the SHO, he alongwith Sl
Ramkesh and HC Subhash went to Azamgarh, UP at
the address provided by the complainant in order to
arrest the accused. Accused Jai Prakash was
arrested at PS Didarganj, Azamgarh, UP vide
arrest memo Ex.PW7/A and his personal search was
conducted vide memo Ex.PW7/B. Accused was
brought to Delhi and his custody was handed over
to IO W/SI Meenu. Accused Jai Prakash was
correctly identified by the witness.
19. PW-10 SI Meenu is the Investigating Officer of
this case. She deposed that on 20.06.2022, while
being posted at PS Tilak Nagar, she was assigned
one call which was registered vide GD No. 113A,
attested copy of same is Ex.PW 10/ A. In the said
call, the caller had informed that his daughter aged
about 4 years has been sexually assaulted by her
husband and her daughter is now admitted at DDU
Hospital. Upon receiving the said call, she went to
DDU Hospital and before that she had called a lady
counselor to approach DDU hospital for
counselling of the victim. At the hospital, IO met the
complainant Smt. KD and victim Ms. J, aged about
4 years. At the One-Stop Center, she made enquiries
from the complainant and victim, the victim was got
counseled from the lady counselor and the victim
was got medically examined at DDU hospital vide
MLC Ex.PWl/A in the presence of mother of victim.
Then IO recorded the statement of the complainant
Smt. KD Ex.PW3/A and prepared tehrir Ex.PWl 0/B
upon the said statement and got the present case
Signature Not Verified
CRL.A. 502/2025 Page 9 of 28
Signed By:BHARTI
Signing Date:02.11.2026
18:32:09
FIR registered at the PS. Thereafter IO went to the
spot alongwith mother of victim and prepared site
plan Ex.PW3/I3 . On 21.06.2022, IO got recorded
the statement of complainant and victim u/s 164
Cr.PC and after recording of such statements, she
obtained copies thereof. The complainant told that
the accused who is her husband is at Azamgarh, UP
and on 22.06.2022, upon the instructions of SHO, a
raiding team was constituted comprising of SI
Ramkesh, HC Subhash and Ct. Dinesh for
apprehending the accused. On that day itself the
victim was produced before CWC. On 23.06.2022,
SI Ramkesh handed over the custody of accused Jai
Prakash to IO alongwith the relevant documents
regarding his arrest from Azamgarh, UP. The
accused was got medically examined at DDU
Hospital vide MLCEx.PW4/A and his potency test
was also got conducted through the same MLC.
Accused was produced before the Court from where
he was sent to judicial custody. PW 10 fu11her
deposed that on 08.07.2022, the complainant
produced one birth certificate of the victim which
was taken into police possession vide seizure memo
Ex.PW3/D. The said birth certificate is Ex.PW3/E
and the same was got verified by me from
Azamgarh, UP through HC Kuldeep. As per the said
birth certificate, the date of birth of victim is
15.10.2018. During the investigation of the case, I
recorded the statement of witnesses u/s 161 Cr.PC
and collected documents. After the conclusion of
investigation, IO filed the charge-sheet in the
Court.
9. After recording the Prosecution evidence, the Appellant was examined
under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter,
Signature Not Verified
CRL.A. 502/2025 Page 10 of 28
Signed By:BHARTI
Signing Date:02.11.2026
18:32:09
‘Cr.P.C.’).In his statement, the appellant denied the prosecution allegations,
stating that he was falsely implicated in the present case.
10. He further stated that the victim has been tutored by her mother, PW3; he
further stated that PW3 plotted a concocted story to get rid of the appellant as
she developed an extramarital relationship with one Suresh of the
neighbourhood.
11. He also stated that he is a disabled person who is not capable of
performing his day-to-day tasks without someone’s help.
12. The learned Trial Court, held that the prosecution had successfully
discharged its initial burden, thereby attracting the statutory presumptions
under Sections 29 and 30 of the POCSO Act against the Appellant. It further
found that the Appellant had failed to rebut the said presumptions, as no
plausible defence was put forth in his statement recorded under Section 313
Cr.P.C.
13. Consequently, the Appellant was held guilty and convicted under
Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012 and sentenced to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for a period of twenty years and a fine of Rs. 10,000/-, and in
default of payment of the fine, simple imprisonment for one year.
14. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid conviction and sentence, the Appellant
preferred the present appeal.
Submissions on behalf of the Appellant
15. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that there was an
unexplained delay of approximately seven months in reporting the alleged
incident, which, as per the prosecution, occurred on 02.11.2021, whereas the
Signature Not Verified
CRL.A. 502/2025 Page 11 of 28
Signed By:BHARTI
Signing Date:02.11.2026
18:32:09
FIR was registered on 20.06.2022. It is contended that the explanation
furnished by PW-3, namely, that the appellant had threatened to kill her and
the victim, is unreliable, as she neither mentioned such threats in her statement
under Section 164 Cr.P.C. nor informed the police about them, a fact admitted
by her during cross-examination. It is further submitted that PW-3's conduct
in sending the appellant to his native village in Azamgarh merely two days
after the alleged incident is inconsistent with her claim that she was
apprehensive of him.
16. Learned counsel further submits that the appellant had suffered a
paralytic attack approximately one and a half years before the alleged incident
and had remained bedridden and incapable of independent movement.
Reliance is placed on the cross-examination of PW-10, the Investigating
Officer, who admitted that the appellant was paralysed prior to the registration
of the FIR and could not stand on his own. It is contended that the appellant's
physical condition renders the allegations highly improbable and supports the
defence that he has been falsely implicated.
17. Learned counsel submits that the medical evidence does not
corroborate the prosecution's version. It is pointed out that, despite allegedly
noticing bleeding immediately after the incident, PW-3 neither sought
medical treatment for the victim nor got her medically examined. The victim
was taken to Deen Dayal Hospital only after approximately six to seven
months, when she allegedly complained of pain while urinating. Reliance is
placed on the testimony of PW-5, Dr. Richa Madan, regarding the
improbability of pain persisting for six months following the alleged insertion
Signature Not Verified
CRL.A. 502/2025 Page 12 of 28
Signed By:BHARTI
Signing Date:02.11.2026
18:32:09
of a finger, as well as the MLC dated 20.06.2022, which records that the
victim's hymen was intact and no injuries were observed.
18. Learned counsel further submits that PW-3 had a motive to falsely
implicate the appellant, as she was burdened with his care following his
paralysis and allegedly wished to sever their marital relationship on account
of her relationship with one Suresh. In this regard, reliance is placed on the
victim's cross-examination, wherein she acknowledged that Suresh frequently
visited their residence and that her mother slept with him. It is submitted that
the Investigating Officer admitted that no inquiry was conducted into the
alleged relationship between PW-3 and Suresh, despite the defence having
raised this aspect.
19. Learned counsel also submits that, while the victim did not specify the
number of alleged incidents in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., she
subsequently deposed during her examination-in-chief that the appellant had
committed the alleged act twice. It is further contended that the victim was
unable to explain the concept of months or specify the time of the alleged
incident consistently in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and her
examination-in-chief, which raises doubts regarding the consistency and
reliability of her testimony and suggests that improvements were made in the
prosecution's version.
20. Learned counsel submits that the substantial delay in lodging the FIR,
the appellant's physical condition, the absence of corroborative medical
findings, the alleged motive for false implication, and the inconsistencies in
the victim's statements cumulatively create reasonable doubt regarding the
prosecution's case. It is, therefore, prayed that the impugned judgment of
Signature Not Verified
CRL.A. 502/2025 Page 13 of 28
Signed By:BHARTI
Signing Date:02.11.2026
18:32:09
conviction and order on sentence be set aside, the appellant be acquitted of
the charges, and he be released forthwith.
Submissions on behalf of the Respondent
21. Learned counsel for Respondent No. 2 submits that the impugned
judgment dated 06.12.2024 and order on sentence dated 07.02.2025 are well-
reasoned and based on a proper appreciation of the evidence on record. It is
submitted that the learned Trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant
under Section 6 of the POCSO Act.
22. Learned Counsel submits that the victim's testimony has remained
consistent on material particulars, including the nature of the sexual assault
and the identity of the appellant. The alleged contradictions between the
testimonies of the victim and her mother are minor and do not affect the
prosecution case. Reliance is placed on State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh ,
(1996) 2 SCC 384 , to contend that a conviction can rest on the sole testimony
of the prosecutrix if it inspires confidence.
23. Learned counsel further submits that the learned Trial Court has rightly
invoked the statutory presumption under Section 29 of the POCSO Act, which
the appellant has failed to rebut. No motive for false implication has been
established by the appellant.
24. As regards the medical evidence, the Learned Counsel submits that the
examination was conducted approximately seven months after the incident.
The absence of any injury does not discredit the victim's testimony,
particularly when the medical evidence does not rule out penetration.
Signature Not Verified
CRL.A. 502/2025 Page 14 of 28
Signed By:BHARTI
Signing Date:02.11.2026
18:32:09
25. Learned Counsel also submits that the delay in registration of the FIR
stands sufficiently explained, considering that the appellant is the victim's
father, who had allegedly threatened and intimidated her. The victim's mother
was also under familial and societal pressure, which prevented her from
reporting the incident promptly. Accordingly, the impugned judgment
warrants no interference and the appeal deserves to be dismissed.
Findings and Analysis
26. This Court has considered the submissions advanced on behalf of the
parties and perused the material available on record.
Age of the Victim
27. At the outset, the age of the victim is not in dispute. The birth certificate
of the victim, exhibited as Ex. PW-3/E, records her date of birth as
15.10.2018. PW-6, HC Kuldeep, deposed that he had verified the said
certificate from the Registrar of Births and Deaths, Phulpur, Azamgarh, Uttar
Pradesh. PW-10, SI Meenu, also confirmed that the certificate was seized vide
Ex. PW-3/D and subsequently verified during investigation. This Court, upon
considering the aforesaid evidence, finds that the victim was a child within
the meaning of Section 2(d) of the POCSO Act. Thus, at the time of the
incident in November 2021, the victim was approximately three years of age,
and her minority stands duly established.
Signature Not Verified
CRL.A. 502/2025 Page 15 of 28
Signed By:BHARTI
Signing Date:02.11.2026
18:32:09
Victim Being Tutored
28. The principal contention advanced on behalf of the Appellant is that the
victim (PW-1) was tutored by her mother (PW-3) to falsely implicate him on
account of her alleged relationship with one Suresh. It is further alleged that
PW-3 intended to get rid of the Appellant and elope with Suresh. The question
which, therefore, arises for consideration is whether the testimony of PW-1
suffers from any infirmity on account of the alleged tutoring and whether the
circumstances relied upon by the defence are sufficient to cast reasonable
doubt upon her account.
29. It is settled law that the testimony of a child witness, if found reliable
upon careful scrutiny, can form the basis of conviction. In Dattu Ramrao
Sakhare v. State of Maharashtra , (1997) 5 SCC 341 , the Hon'ble Supreme
Court held that even in the absence of an oath, the evidence of a child witness
can be relied upon, provided the witness is capable of understanding the
questions and furnishing rational answers. The Court must, however, exercise
caution to ascertain that the witness is reliable and that there is no likelihood
of tutoring. Similarly, in Rai Sandeep @ Deepu v. State (NCT of Delhi) ,
(2012) 8 SCC 21 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court emphasised that the reliability
of a witness must be assessed with reference to the consistency of the account
on material particulars and its ability to withstand scrutiny.
30. In the present case, the record reflects that the learned Trial Court, prior
to recording the deposition of PW-1, put preliminary questions to ascertain
her ability to understand and answer questions. The victim correctly answered
Signature Not Verified
CRL.A. 502/2025 Page 16 of 28
Signed By:BHARTI
Signing Date:02.11.2026
18:32:09
questions concerning her age, schooling and the purpose of her appearance
before the Court. When specifically questioned whether anyone was
influencing or pressurising her, she answered in the negative. The learned
Trial Court, having satisfied itself that the victim was capable of furnishing
rational answers, proceeded to record her testimony. The competency of PW-
1 to depose having been ascertained, her testimony must be examined to
determine whether the allegation of tutoring finds support from the evidence
on record.
31. During her deposition, PW-1 affirmed having made the statement
recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and identified the Appellant through the
one-way computer screen. The relevant portions of her testimony read as
under:
“Whatever has been written in such statement, I had
told the true incidence to the Lady Judge in such
statement.”
“I have seen accused Jai Prakash who have been
shown to me on computer screen. He is my Papa and
the same person about whom I have stated above.
His name is Jai Prakash.”
The victim further described the alleged act, identified the part of her body
where it had been committed and stated that her mother was away for work at
the relevant time. Her testimony also finds assurance in the deposition of PW-
3, who stated that upon returning from work, she found her daughter crying
and was informed about the wrongful act committed by the Appellant. Thus,
although PW-3 was not an eyewitness, her testimony lends assurance to the
Signature Not Verified
CRL.A. 502/2025 Page 17 of 28
Signed By:BHARTI
Signing Date:02.11.2026
18:32:09
account of PW-1 concerning the disclosure of the incident and the identity of
the alleged perpetrator.
32. The defence has particularly relied upon the answers elicited from PW-
1 during cross-examination concerning one Suresh Chacha, to substantiate the
allegation that PW-3 had tutored the victim to falsely implicate the Appellant.
The relevant portion of her cross-examination reads as under:
“Q. Kya aapko pata hai ki Suresh Chacha kaun hai?
A. Haa.
Q. Kya Suresh Chacha aapke ghar aate jaate hai?
A. Haa.
Q. Kya Suresh Chacha aapke saath kabhi kabhi
rehte bhi hai?
A. Suresh Chacha sote hai neeche.
Q. Suresh Chacha ke saath kaun sota hai?
A. Mummy.”
33. A perusal of the aforesaid testimony reveals that PW-1, while
attributing the alleged act to the Appellant, also stated that her mother slept
with Suresh. This circumstance assumes significance in the context of the
allegation of tutoring. If PW-3 had indeed tutored the victim to falsely
implicate the Appellant in order to pursue her alleged relationship with
Suresh, it is difficult to comprehend why she would also tutor the child to
make a statement concerning her own association with Suresh, which could
potentially cast aspersions upon her. The fact that PW-1 made such a
statement during cross-examination, while consistently attributing the alleged
act to the Appellant, is a relevant circumstance in assessing the allegation of
tutoring. Though this circumstance, by itself, may not conclusively exclude
Signature Not Verified
CRL.A. 502/2025 Page 18 of 28
Signed By:BHARTI
Signing Date:02.11.2026
18:32:09
the possibility of tutoring, it lends weight to the reliability of PW-1's account.
Significantly, PW-1 also specifically denied the suggestion that her mother
and Suresh had tutored her to falsely implicate the Appellant.
34. Furthermore, the allegation that PW-3 intended to get rid of the
Appellant and elope with Suresh remains unsubstantiated. PW-3 specifically
denied the suggestions that Suresh bore her household expenses or paid the
rent of the premises. Apart from the statement elicited from PW-1 concerning
Suresh, no other cogent material has been brought on record to establish the
alleged motive for false implication. Even assuming an association between
PW-3 and Suresh, the same does not establish that the allegation against the
Appellant was fabricated. Although the defence is not required to establish its
innocence, the circumstances relied upon must be sufficient to raise a
reasonable doubt regarding the prosecution case. In the present case, the
material relied upon by the Appellant does not give rise to such a doubt.
35. The testimony of PW-1 must be appreciated in its entirety, bearing in
mind her tender age at the time of the incident. The omission to specify the
number of incidents in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., as compared
to her deposition that the act was committed twice, does not materially affect
the essential allegation. In Vijay @ Chinee v. State of Madhya Pradesh ,
(2010) 8 SCC 191 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court reiterated that minor
discrepancies which do not affect the core of the prosecution case cannot be
made a ground for rejecting the evidence in its entirety. Upon a careful
consideration of the testimony of PW-1, the evidence of PW-3 and the
circumstances elicited during cross-examination, this Court finds that PW-1
Signature Not Verified
CRL.A. 502/2025 Page 19 of 28
Signed By:BHARTI
Signing Date:02.11.2026
18:32:09
remained consistent on the material particulars concerning the nature of the
act and the identity of the Appellant. The allegation of tutoring and false
implication finds no sufficient support from the evidence on record and does
not undermine the reliability of her testimony. Accordingly, the said
contention does not merit acceptance.
Medical Observation
36. The next contention concerns the medical evidence, particularly the
alleged continuation of pain in the victim's private parts for approximately six
months after the incident. PW-4, deposed that on 20.06.2022, the victim was
brought to DDU Hospital with a history of pain in the perianal region. The
relevant portion of his testimony reads as under:
“On that day, one child namely ' J’ D/o Sh. ' JP’,
aged about 3 years female was brought to the
hospital by SI Meenu for her medical examination
under the history of pain in perianal region, she
gave history of sexual assault by her father and
child’s mother also gave history of sexual assault by
her (child’s) father in November 2021.”
37. The aforesaid testimony establishes that the allegation against the
Appellant was disclosed at the time of medical examination. Learned counsel
for the Appellant has further relied upon the testimony of PW-5, who, during
cross-examination, stated as under:
“It is highly improbable that in case of insertion of
finger into the private part of a female child below
5 years, pain can continue for six months. (Voltd.
Signature Not Verified
CRL.A. 502/2025 Page 20 of 28
Signed By:BHARTI
Signing Date:02.11.2026
18:32:09
Psychological trauma can continue over such
period.)”
38. The aforesaid statement must be read in its entirety. While PW-5
expressed the improbability of physical pain continuing for six months, she
also clarified that psychological trauma could persist over such a period. The
witness did not rule out the occurrence of the alleged act. Further, the
testimony of PW-3 is that she approached the hospital when the victim
complained of pain while urinating approximately six months after the
incident. This does not necessarily amount to an assertion that the same
physical pain had continued uninterrupted throughout the intervening period.
The inability to medically attribute the subsequent pain to the earlier incident
cannot, by itself, establish that no such incident had occurred.
39. It is a settled principle that a conviction for a sexual offence can rest
upon the sole testimony of the victim, provided the same inspires confidence.
In State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh , (1996) 2 SCC 384 , the Hon’ble Supreme
Court held that corroboration is not an indispensable requirement where the
testimony of the prosecutrix is otherwise trustworthy. In the present case, the
medical examination was conducted several months after the alleged
occurrence. The absence of visible injuries at that stage does not necessarily
exclude the occurrence of the alleged act. Accordingly, this Court finds no
infirmity in the testimony of the victim notwithstanding the absence of
independent medical corroboration.
Accused suffering from Paralysis
40. Another contention advanced on behalf of the Appellant is that he was
suffering from paralysis and was physically incapable of committing the
Signature Not Verified
CRL.A. 502/2025 Page 21 of 28
Signed By:BHARTI
Signing Date:02.11.2026
18:32:09
alleged act. The factum of paralysis is borne out from the prosecution
evidence itself. PW-3 deposed that she had come to Delhi for the treatment of
the Appellant, who was suffering from paralysis. The relevant portion of her
testimony reads as under:
“ मेरीबेटीकानाम ‘J’ है . म œ िद ʟ ी म Ő अपनेपितजय
Ů काश (accused) काइलाजकरनेकेिलएजुलाई 2021
आयीथी . मेरेपितकोपैरािलिससहोगयाहैऔरइलाज
.
झ Ǒ र हरयाणासेचलरहाथा म œ कामकरनेकेिलएगंगा
रामवािटकाम Ő एककोठीम Ő झाडू - पोछाकरनेजातीथी .”
41. The evidence of PW-9, who was a member of the police team
constituted to apprehend the Appellant, also establishes the existence of
paralysis. He deposed as under:
“We went to the above said address and found
accused Jai Prakash, who was found resting on a
cot and accused was paralyzed.”
During cross-examination, he further admitted:
“It is correct that accused was not in a position to
move when he was arrested. It is correct that the
accused was paralyzed.”
42. Similarly, PW-10, admitted during cross-examination that the
Appellant could not stand independently and was bedridden when his custody
was obtained. The relevant portion of her testimony reads as under:
“I cannot say whether the accused was having 70%
disability due to paralysis. However, he could not
stand on his own due to paralysis after his custody
Signature Not Verified
CRL.A. 502/2025 Page 22 of 28
Signed By:BHARTI
Signing Date:02.11.2026
18:32:09
was obtained by me. Accused was bedridden at that
time and I cannot say whether he was able to
perform his daily chores on his own or not and was
dependent upon others for the same.”
43. Thus, the physical disability of the Appellant stands established.
However, the material question is whether the said disability rendered him
physically incapable of committing the particular act alleged against him. In
this regard, the testimony of PW-4 assumes significance. PW-4 examined the
Appellant on 24.06.2022 vide MLC Ex. PW-4/A and opined as under:
“I opined that there is nothing to suggest that the
accused cannot do sexual act or sexual
intercourse.”
44. The testimony of PW-3 is also material to this aspect. During her
deposition before the learned Trial Court, she stated that the Appellant,
despite suffering from paralysis, was capable of changing the child's
undergarments using one hand and could also smoke a bidi. The relevant
portion of her testimony reads as under:
. (Voltd.
“ ब DŽ े केकपडेभीम œ हीबदलतीथी जबम œ काम
परचलीजातीथीऔरमेरीबेटीसुसुवगेहराकरदेतीथी
तोमु İ ʏ म हीमेरीबेटीकीच ǭ ी बदलताथाएकहाथसे
औरवोबीड़ीभीपीलेताअपनेएकहाथसे .)”
45. The inability of the Appellant to stand or move independently cannot,
without further medical evidence, be equated with a complete inability to use
his upper limbs or commit the particular act attributed to him. Upon
considering the testimony of PW-1, the evidence of PW-3 and the medical
Signature Not Verified
CRL.A. 502/2025 Page 23 of 28
Signed By:BHARTI
Signing Date:02.11.2026
18:32:09
opinion of PW-4, this Court finds that the plea of physical incapacity does not
create a reasonable doubt sufficient to displace the prosecution version.
Delay in Lodging the FIR
46. The final contention concerns the delay of approximately seven months
in lodging the FIR. PW-3 explained that she did not report the incident
immediately owing to fear and the alleged threats extended by the Appellant.
The relevant portion of her testimony reads as under:
“ जबम œने मु İ ʏ म जय Ů काश सेपुछातोउसनेहसते Š ए
बोलाकीम œ मजाककररहाथा . म œने जय Ů काश कीमाँ
.
कोफ़ोनिकयाऔरउससेभीबताया इसकेबादजय
Ů काश नेमुझेधमकीदीकीम œ कुछभीकरसकता Š और
तुझेऔरतेरीबेटीकोमरवाभीसकता Š |”
She further stated:
“
म œ ब Š त डरगयीथीऔरडरकेकारणम œने मु İ ʏ म जय
Ů काश कोबसम Ő बैठािदयातािकवोगाँवजासके . म œने
बेटीकाइलाजभीनहींकरवायाथा .”
47. PW-3 also explained the circumstances in which she refrained from
taking the victim for medical examination and subsequently approached the
hospital. The relevant portion of her testimony reads as under:
“ म œ अपनीबेटीकोकहीभीनहींलेकरगयीथी Ɛ ोंिक
मुझेडरलगताथाऔरमेरीबेटीबतादेतीथीकीउसके
साथ Ɛ ाŠ आ . म œने तभीबतायाजबमेरीबेटीकोसुसु
06 .”
करनेम Ő दद Ŋ होनेलगाघटनाकेकरीब महीनेबाद
Signature Not Verified
CRL.A. 502/2025 Page 24 of 28
Signed By:BHARTI
Signing Date:02.11.2026
18:32:09
“ म œ अपनीबेटीको Din Dayal हॉ İ ˙ टल लेकरगयीथी
इलाजकेिलएऔरहॉ İ ˙ टल सेहीम œने पुिलसकोफ़ोन
िकया | पुिलसवहाँपरआयीऔरमुझसेऔरमेरीबेटीसे
पूछताछकी |”
48. In State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh , (1996) 2 SCC 384 , the Hon’ble
Supreme Court recognised that delay in reporting sexual offences may arise
from the reluctance of the victim or her family to approach the police owing
to apprehensions concerning social reputation and the consequences of
disclosure. Similarly, in Tulshidas Kanolkar v. State of Goa , (2003) 8 SCC
590 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that delay in lodging an FIR cannot be
treated as a mechanical ground for rejecting the prosecution case. The Court
must examine whether a satisfactory explanation has been offered and
whether the delay has resulted in any material embellishment or exaggeration.
49. Applying the aforesaid principles to the present case, this Court finds
that the delay stands satisfactorily explained. The victim was approximately
three years of age at the time of the occurrence, and the person accused was
her own father. PW-3 attributed her failure to report the incident immediately
to fear and the apprehension that her daughter would disclose what had
occurred. The omission concerning the alleged threats in her earlier statement,
as pointed out by the defence, has also been considered. However, her
explanation for the delay does not rest solely upon the alleged threats. The
relationship between the parties, the tender age of the victim and the
circumstances in which the incident came to be reported are equally material.
50. PW-10 deposed that on 20.06.2022, information regarding the alleged
sexual assault was received vide GD No. 113A, whereafter the victim was
Signature Not Verified
CRL.A. 502/2025 Page 25 of 28
Signed By:BHARTI
Signing Date:02.11.2026
18:32:09
medically examined and the FIR came to be registered. The statements of the
victim and PW-3 under Section 164 Cr.P.C. were recorded on 21.06.2022.
Thus, the sequence of events following the disclosure at the hospital stands
established through the investigation record. This Court finds that the
testimony of PW-1 on the material particulars has remained consistent and no
embellishment attributable to the delay has been demonstrated.
51. Having dealt with the contentions raised by the Appellant, this Court
proceeds to consider whether the ingredients of the offence punishable under
Section 6 of the POCSO Act stand established. Section 3(b) of the POCSO
Act includes:
he inserts, to any extent, any object or a part of the
body, not being the penis, into the vagina, the
urethra or anus of the child or makes the child to do
so with him or any other person;
Section 5(m) of the POCSO Act further provides that penetrative sexual
assault committed upon a child below twelve years constitutes aggravated
penetrative sexual assault, punishable under Section 6 of the Act.
52. In the present case, this Court finds that the allegation of digital
penetration stood established. The victim, being of extremely tender age,
described the act in the language available to her and identified the relevant
part of her body before the learned trial court. The essential allegation
remained consistent in her subsequent deposition. Her account also finds
assurance in the evidence of PW-3 concerning the disclosure made
immediately after the incident. The age of the victim being below twelve years
at the relevant time, the aggravating circumstance contemplated under Section
5(m) of the POCSO Act also stands established.
Signature Not Verified
CRL.A. 502/2025 Page 26 of 28
Signed By:BHARTI
Signing Date:02.11.2026
18:32:09
Conclusion
53. Upon a cumulative appreciation of the evidence on record, this Court
finds that PW-1 has consistently identified the Appellant and attributed the
act of sexual assault to him. Her testimony finds assurance in the evidence of
PW-3 concerning the disclosure made by the victim. The medical evidence
does not rule out the occurrence, while the evidence concerning the
Appellant's paralysis does not establish that he was physically incapable of
committing the alleged act. The allegations of tutoring and false implication
remain unsubstantiated, and the delay in lodging the FIR stands reasonably
explained. The minor variations pointed out by the defence do not affect the
substratum of the prosecution case.
54. In view of the foregoing, this Court finds that the age of the victim, the
nature of the act, the identity of the Appellant and the material circumstances
surrounding the occurrence stand duly established. The testimony of PW-1,
read with the evidence of PW-3 and the other material on record, establishes
the foundational facts necessary to attract the statutory presumption under
Section 29 of the POCSO Act, which the Appellant has failed to rebut. Even
independently of the said presumption, the evidence, considered in its
entirety, establishes the guilt of the Appellant beyond reasonable doubt.
55. This Court is, therefore, satisfied that the prosecution has established
the guilt of the Appellant beyond reasonable doubt and upon a proper
appreciation of the evidence, concludes that the Appellant is guilty of
aggravated penetrative sexual assault punishable under Section 6 of the
POCSO Act. The impugned judgment of conviction dated 06.12.2024 does
not suffer from any perversity or misappreciation of evidence warranting
Signature Not Verified
CRL.A. 502/2025 Page 27 of 28
Signed By:BHARTI
Signing Date:02.11.2026
18:32:09
interference in appeal. Accordingly, the conviction of the Appellant under
Section 6 of the POCSO Act is upheld.
56. The learned Trial Court, vide order on sentence dated 07.02.2025,
sentenced the Appellant to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of
twenty years for the offence punishable under Section 6 of the POCSO Act,
along with a fine of Rs. 10,000/-, and in default of payment of fine, to undergo
simple imprisonment for one year. This Court finds no ground to interfere
with the sentence so awarded. Accordingly, the impugned order on sentence
dated 07.02.2025 is also upheld.
57. Consequently, the present appeal stands dismissed. Pending
application(s), if any, also stand(s) disposed of.
58. A copy of this judgment be communicated to the learned Trial Court
and concerned Jail Superintendent for necessary compliance.
59. The judgment be uploaded on the website forthwith.
MADHU JAIN
(JUDGE)
NOVEMBER 2, 2026/YT
Signature Not Verified
CRL.A. 502/2025 Page 28 of 28
Signed By:BHARTI
Signing Date:02.11.2026
18:32:09