Delhi HC Upholds 7-Year POCSO Sentence For Van Driver Who Made 10-Year-Old Girl Touch His Penis

The appellant, a school-van driver, was accused of making the ten-year-old victim touch his penis while she was returning from school and threatening to kill her if she disclosed the incident.

The victim reported the incident to her mother shortly after reaching home.

The Sessions Court convicted the appellant under Section 10 read with Section 9(m) of the POCSO Act, acquitted him of the charge under Section 506 IPC, and imposed seven years’ rigorous imprisonment, a fine, and compensation for the victim.

The appellant challenged the conviction and sentence, alleging material inconsistencies, false implication arising from a van-fare dispute, and inadequate corroboration.

Section 7 of the POCSO Act defines sexual assault to include making a child touch the accused’s penis with sexual intent and physical contact without penetration; Section 9(m) makes sexual assault on a child below twelve an aggravated sexual assault, punishable under Section 10.

Under State (NCT of Delhi) v. Pankaj Chaudhary, (2019) 11 SCC 575, and Ganesan v. State, (2020) 10 SCC 573, a credible and trustworthy victim’s testimony may alone sustain a conviction; independent corroboration is not invariably required.

Section 29 of the POCSO Act provides a statutory presumption once the foundational facts are established.

For age determination, the Court relied on Ashwani Kumar Saxena v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 2013 SC 553, observing that courts need not conduct a roving enquiry into records maintained in the ordinary course of business.

The Court also considered Section 33(8) of the POCSO Act and Rule 9 of the POCSO Rules, 2020, in relation to compensation.

The Court found that the school records and birth certificate established the victim’s date of birth as 13 January 2008, making her approximately ten years old on the date of the incident.

The victim gave a clear and consistent account of the appellant making her touch his penis under the pretext of teaching her to change gears; cross-examination did not discredit the essential particulars.

Her mother’s evidence about the victim’s distressed return home and prompt disclosure provided further assurance.

The alleged fare dispute was denied by the mother and victim and was unsupported by substantive evidence; the Court held that the absence of independent corroboration did not undermine an otherwise credible account.

The Court accordingly found the ingredients of Sections 7, 9(m), and 10 established and no material infirmity in the Trial Court’s findings.

As the appellant’s sentence had been suspended and he released on bail, he was directed to surrender before the concerned Jail Superintendent within four weeks to serve the remaining sentence, with the benefit of Section 428 CrPC.