Full Judgment Text
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Reserved on : 28.10.2025
Pronounced on : 29.10.2025
+ CRL.A. 1201/2024
STATE ( GNCT OF DELHI) .....Appellant
Through: Ms. Shubhi Gupta. APP for State with
SI Kavita Bhardwaj, PS Shalimar
Bagh
versus
BAL CHAND .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Neeraj Kumar, (DHCLSC), Mr.
Samarth Vikram Singh and Mr. Harsh
Saini, Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR OHRI
JUDGMENT
1. The present appeal has been preferred by the State against the
judgment dated 01.12.2018 passed by the learned ASJ-01, Special Court,
POCSO, North-West, Rohini District Courts, Delhi in proceedings arising
out of FIR No. 388/16, P.S. Shalimar Bagh registered under Sections
376/506 IPC and section 6 POCSO Act, whereby the respondent was
acquitted.
This Court, vide order dated 11.12.2024, while allowing the leave to
appeal petition of the State, directed the respondent to furnish fresh bail
bond with surety.
2. Learned APP for the State, submits that the Trial Court has erred in
Signature Not Verified
CRL.A. 1201/2024 Page 1 of 9
Digitally Signed
By:NIJAMUDDEE
N ANSARI
acquitting the respondent. It is contended that the respondent dragged the
victim into his jhuggi and thereafter inserted his finger in her vagina. The
prosecutrix reiterated allegations made in the F.I.R when her statement
under Section 164 CrPC was recorded as well as at the time of the
deposition. It is submitted that the contradictions, if any, in the testimonies
of the witnesses are trivial in nature and do not weaken the prosecution case.
3. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, supports the
impugned judgment and contends that the testimony of the child victim and
her father differs on numerous material aspects. It is further submitted that
there were quarrels between the respondent and the father of the child victim
just prior to registration of the present FIR and on account of quarrel which
took place day(s) prior, the false case came to be lodged after a delay of two
days.
4. The case of the prosecution was that on 01.06.2016, the respondent,
who was the neighbour of the prosecutrix, dragged her in his jhuggi, made
her sit in his lap and inserted his finger in her vagina. On 03.06.2016, upon
receipt of DD No. 7-A at 2:30 am, the IO reached the BJRM Hospital where
the child victim was present along with her father. The F.I.R. was registered
on the basis of her statement and the accused was arrested at the instance of
the father of the victim. Charges were framed under Section 5(m) read with
Section 6 of the POCSO Act and Section 506 IPC.
5. The prosecution examined eight witnesses to substantiate its case. The
most material of them being the child victim herself, examined as PW2. Dr.
R. Kappu, Medical Officer, BJRM, was examined as PW1. The father of the
victim was examined as PW5 and one Smt. Chinta, who was the wife of a
friend of PW5, was examined as PW4. The remaining witnesses were formal
Signature Not Verified
CRL.A. 1201/2024 Page 2 of 9
Digitally Signed
By:NIJAMUDDEE
N ANSARI
in nature, who deposed as to the various aspects of investigation. In his
statement recorded under Section 313 CrPC, the respondent claimed false
implication at the behest of the father of the child victim, with whom he had
a previous quarrel.
6. Pertinently, besides the oral testimony of child victim and her father,
there is no supporting evidence in form of medical or forensic examination
reports. The law pertaining to appreciation of oral testimony of child victim
is settled and recently reiterated in State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Balveer
1
Singh , wherein the Supreme Court has examined the principles governing
the testimony of a child-witness and summarized the legal position in the
following manner:
“58. We summarize our conclusion as under:-
…
(VII) There is no requirement or condition that the evidence of a child
witness must be corroborated before it can be considered. A child witness
who exhibits the demeanour of any other competent witness and whose
evidence inspires confidence can be relied upon without any need for
corroboration and can form the sole basis for conviction. If the evidence
of the child explains the relevant events of the crime without improvements
or embellishments, the same does not require any corroboration
whatsoever.
(VIII) Corroboration of the evidence of the child witness may be insisted
upon by the courts as measure of caution and prudence where the
evidence of the child is found to be either tutored or riddled with material
discrepancies or contradictions. There is no hard and fast rule when such
corroboration would be desirous or required, and would depend upon the
peculiar facts and circumstances of each case.
(IX) Child witnesses are considered as dangerous witnesses as they are
pliable and liable to be influenced easily, shaped and moulded and as such
the courts must rule out the possibility of tutoring. If the courts after a
careful scrutiny, find that there is neither any tutoring nor any attempt to
use the child witness for ulterior purposes by the prosecution, then the
courts must rely on the confidence-inspiring testimony of such a witness in
determining the guilt or innocence of the accused. In the absence of any
1
2025 SCC OnLine SC 390
Signature Not Verified
CRL.A. 1201/2024 Page 3 of 9
Digitally Signed
By:NIJAMUDDEE
N ANSARI
allegations by the accused in this regard, an inference as to whether the
child has been tutored or not, can be drawn from the contents of his
deposition..”
In light of contentions regarding false implication and tutoring on
account of frequent quarrels between the victim’s father and the
accused/respondent, the testimonies have to be examined with greater
caution and stringent scrutiny.
7. The child victim ‘A’, examined as PW2, was the key witness for the
prosecution case. She deposed that on 01.06.2016, she was playing outside
the jhuggi of the respondent, who was her neighbour. The respondent called
her inside, made her sit on his lap, put his hand in her underwear and
inserted his finger inside her private part. He also threatened to kill her, if
she disclosed the incident. As per her version, one aunty witnessed the
incident and called her mother, who was in her native village. Her father
returned home from work around 9.00 p.m., but she did not disclose
anything to her father and it was this aunty who had told him about the
incident. Thereafter, her father called Smt. Chinta/PW4 and also informed
the Police. In her cross-examination, she stated that she was playing with the
grand children of the respondent and that she had not mentioned this in any
previous statement. She further stated that when the respondent took her
inside the Jhuggi, his grand-daughter was also present inside the Jhuggi . She
was given a suggestion that a quarrel had occurred between the respondent
and the father of the child victim on account of which the victim had falsely
implicated the respondent, which was denied.
8. The testimony of father of the victim, examined as PW-5, however
paints the canvas differently. He had an entirely different account of how he
Signature Not Verified
CRL.A. 1201/2024 Page 4 of 9
Digitally Signed
By:NIJAMUDDEE
N ANSARI
came to know about the incident. As per him, on 03.06.2016, when he came
back from work, his daughter informed him that the respondent committed
Chhed Chhad with her, by inserting his finger in her private part. Thereafter
he, along with his daughter and one Smt. Chinta , who was the wife of his
friend, went to the Police Station to report the incident. In his cross-
examination, he deposed that he called Chinta , and the child victim
informed about the alleged incident to Chinta . He further stated that none of
his neighbours had informed him of any such incident. He also deposed that
the child victim had told her that the granddaughter of the respondent, as
well as his daughter-in-law, were both present on the ground floor of the
Jhuggi and the respondent called her on the first floor. He was also given a
suggestion of prior quarrel with the respondent, which he denied.
9. Adding further variation to the prosecution case, is Smt. Chinta ,
examined as PW4. She stated that though she was called by the father of the
child victim, upon which she reached their house, she did not make any
conversation with the child victim. The father of the child victim did not
inform her of any incident either. She came to know of the incident when the
child victim gave her statement to the Police. Thus, she did not support the
testimony of the father of the child victim.
10. Due to these material contradictions, it was for the prosecution to rely
on other witnesses and evidence to establish its case. Interestingly, though
the child victim had stated that one aunty had witnessed the incident who
had also informed her father, the said aunty was neither questioned by the
IO nor examined in Court.
11. As noted above, the medical examination of the victim, proved
through Dr. R. Kappu, Medical Officer, BJRM, also sheds no light on the
Signature Not Verified
CRL.A. 1201/2024 Page 5 of 9
Digitally Signed
By:NIJAMUDDEE
N ANSARI
alleged incident. It is noted in the MLC, that internal examination of the
victim was refused and further, no fresh injury was seen the time of the
examination. There is no FSL report as neither any samples were collected
or sent for the forensic examination.
12. The respondent had also examined two defence witnesses, both
neighbours. One of the neighbours, Roshan , examined as DW1, deposed that
on 02.06.2016, at about 7/7.30 PM, he saw the father of the child victim,
who appeared to be drunk, starting a quarrel with the respondent. They had a
fight and were separated by intervention of neighbours. He stated that the
Police had come on spot and taken both of them to the Police Station. He
also stated that the child victim was not at home for the last 2-3 days as she
had gone to a relative’s house. DW2, Smt. Runjhun Devi , another neighbour,
also deposed that on 01.06.2016, the father of the child victim in a drunken
state had quarrelled with the victim. This quarrel happened again on the next
day and they had to be separated by the public.
13. The Trial Court, upon a detailed analysis of the evidence, extended
the benefit of the doubt to the respondent and acquitted him of the offence
under Section 6 POCSO Act and Section 506 IPC. It was noted that there
was an admitted delay in reporting the matter since as per the victim, the
incident happened on 01.06.2016. However, as per the FIR, the incident was
reported on the intervening night of 02.06.2016 and 03.06.2016. The Trial
Court held that the prosecution was unable to explain that if one Aunty, who
was the alleged eye witness, had immediately raised alarm, leading to the
gathering of the public, then why the complaint was made on 03.06.2016.
The Trial Court was also cognizant of the fact that there were no external
injuries on the child victim and internal examination was also refused. The
Signature Not Verified
CRL.A. 1201/2024 Page 6 of 9
Digitally Signed
By:NIJAMUDDEE
N ANSARI
alleged eye witness of the incident was not even enquired by the I.O. The
Trial Court also considered the above discussed contradictions in the
testimony of the child victim and her father. As per the child victim, she did
not inform her father and he was actually informed due to alarm being raised
by one aunty. On the other hand, the father deposed that the child victim
herself had informed him of the incident and no other neighbour had
informed her. The victim had stated that none other than the grand daughter
was present in the Jhuggi, however, as per the father, the child victim had
informed her that the daughter in-law was also present in the Jhuggi at that
time. The father’s deposition was also contradictory to the deposition of
Smt. Chinta, since as per him, he informed her about the incident, however,
she stated that she only came to know about the incident at the Police
Station. Moreover, the father has not uttered anything about calling Smt.
Chinta in his statement to the police under Section 161 CrPC.
14. The law pertaining to double presumption of innocence operating in
favour of an accused at the appellate stage after his acquittal by the Trial
Court is fortunately a settled position, no longer res integra . A gainful
reference may be made to the Supreme Court’s decision in Ravi Sharma v.
State (NCT of Delhi), reported as (2022) 8 SCC 536 , wherein it was
observed, as hereunder:
“8. …We would like to quote the relevant portion of a recent judgment of
this Court in Jafarudheen v. State of Kerala [Jafarudheen v. State of
Kerala, (2022) 8 SCC 440] as follows : (SCC p. 454, para 25)
“25. While dealing with an appeal against acquittal by
invoking Section 378CrPC, the appellate court has to consider
whether the trial court's view can be termed as a possible one,
particularly when evidence on record has been analysed. The
reason is that an order of acquittal adds up to the presumption
of innocence in favour of the accused. Thus, the appellate court
has to be relatively slow in reversing the order of the trial court
Signature Not Verified
CRL.A. 1201/2024 Page 7 of 9
Digitally Signed
By:NIJAMUDDEE
N ANSARI
rendering acquittal. Therefore, the presumption in favour of the
accused does not get weakened but only strengthened. Such a
double presumption that enures in favour of the accused has to
be disturbed only by thorough scrutiny on the accepted legal
parameters.””
15. At this juncture, it is also deemed apposite to refer to the decision of
the Supreme Court in Anwar Ali v. State of H.P., reported as ( 2020) 10 SCC
166 , wherein it has been categorically held that the principles of double
presumption of innocence and benefit of doubt should ordinarily operate in
favour of the accused in an appeal to an acquittal. The relevant portions are
produced hereinunder:
14.1. In Babu [Babu v. State of Kerala, (2010) 9 SCC 189 : (2010) 3
“
SCC (Cri) 1179] , this Court had reiterated the principles to be followed in
an appeal against acquittal under Section 378 CrPC. In paras 12 to 19, it
is observed and held as under: (SCC pp. 196-99)
“…
13. In Sheo Swarup v. King Emperor [Sheo Swarup v. King
Emperor, 1934 SCC OnLine PC 42 : (1933-34) 61 IA 398 : AIR
1934 PC 227 (2)] , the Privy Council observed as under: (SCC
Online PC: IA p. 404)
„… the High Court should and will always give proper
weight and consideration to such matters as (1) the views of the
trial Judge as to the credibility of the witnesses; (2) the
presumption of innocence in favour of the accused, a
presumption certainly not weakened by the fact that he has been
acquitted at his trial; (3) the right of the accused to the benefit
of any doubt; and (4) the slowness of an appellate court in
disturbing a finding of fact arrived at by a Judge who had the
advantage of seeing the witnesses.‟
…
(4) An appellate court, however, must bear in mind that in
case of acquittal, there is double presumption in favour of the
accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence is available to
him under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence
that every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is
proved guilty by a competent court of law. Secondly, the
accused having secured his acquittal, the presumption of his
Signature Not Verified
CRL.A. 1201/2024 Page 8 of 9
Digitally Signed
By:NIJAMUDDEE
N ANSARI
innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by
the trial court.
(5) If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis
of the evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb
the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court.‟
16. This Court has carefully examined the impugned judgment and the
evidence on record and concurs with the findings of the Trial Court and
proceeds to elaborate that material contradictions in the testimonies of key
prosecution witnesses, such as the child victim, her father and Smt. Chinta ,
the lack of any medical or scientific evidence and non-examination of
material eye-witness, accompanied by defence witnesses deposing as to the
occurrence of a quarrel between the respondent and the father of the child
victim, materially affect the prosecution case against the respondent and the
same cannot be said to have been established beyond reasonable doubt.
17. In view of the above, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the
finding of acquittal recorded by the Trial Court. The appeal filed by the
State is accordingly dismissed. The bail bonds furnished are cancelled, and
sureties discharged.
18. A copy of this judgment be communicated to the Trial Court.
MANOJ KUMAR OHRI
(JUDGE)
ry
OCTOBER 29, 2025/
Signature Not Verified
CRL.A. 1201/2024 Page 9 of 9
Digitally Signed
By:NIJAMUDDEE
N ANSARI