Delhi HC Upholds 20-Year POCSO Sentence for Mother’s Dharam Brother Convicted of Repeatedly Assaulting 12-Year-Old Girl

The appellant was convicted by the Sessions Court of kidnapping, rape and criminal intimidation under Sections 363, 376 and 506 IPC, and aggravated penetrative sexual assault under Section 6 of the POCSO Act.

The prosecution case was that the appellant took the 12-year-and-9-month-old victim from a park, repeatedly sexually assaulted her, prevented her from returning to her parents and threatened her and her family.

The victim’s mother had treated the appellant as her dharam bhai; she testified that he lived with the family.

The Sessions Court relied principally on the victim’s testimony, imposed 20 years’ rigorous imprisonment under Section 6 and directed payment of ₹10.5 lakh compensation to the victim.

The appellant challenged the conviction, sentence and compensation order, citing inconsistencies in the evidence and investigation, uncertainty about the victim’s age, lack of medical corroboration, and alleged false implication.

Under the POCSO Act, a child is a person below 18 years; the child’s age may be established through duly proved school records.

Repeated commission of penetrative sexual assault falls within Section 5(l), while the applicable relationship or shared-household circumstance may bring the offence within Section 5(n); aggravated penetrative sexual assault is punishable under Section 6.

A prosecutrix’s testimony, if credible and confidence-inspiring, may alone sustain a conviction; corroboration is not a legal requirement, although it may be a matter of prudence in the circumstances of a case. Minor discrepancies do not, by themselves, justify rejecting reliable testimony (State of H.P. v. Manga Singh, (2019) 16 SCC 759; Phool Singh v. State of M.P., (2022) 2 SCC 74).

Investigative defects do not automatically defeat an otherwise reliable prosecution case.

The Court also considered Nirmal Premkumar v. State of Tamil Nadu, (2024) 20 SCC 293, on assessing the quality and credibility of a prosecutrix’s testimony.

The sentence imposed under Section 6 was assessed against its statutory minimum; compensation was considered under Section 33(8) of the POCSO Act and Rule 9 of the POCSO Rules, 2020.

The Court found the school records, proved through a school official, established that the victim was under 18 at the time of the incident.

It considered her accounts to be materially consistent: she identified the appellant, described repeated penetrative assault, his violence and threats, and maintained her account under cross-examination.

The Court held that the alleged discrepancies concerning recovery, counselling, statement-recording and seizure dates, as well as the absence of independent witnesses, did not displace that testimony; the alleged monetary dispute and claim that the victim was protecting another boy were unsupported.

It further relied on the mother’s evidence that the appellant lived with the family, together with the evidence of repeated assaults, to uphold the findings under Sections 5(l) and 5(n).

Given the statutory minimum sentence and the circumstances of the offence, it found no basis to disturb the sentence or compensation order.

It directed that the appellant receive the benefit of Section 428 CrPC in accordance with law and that a copy of the judgment be sent to the Trial Court and the concerned jail superintendent.