Delhi HC Upholds Conviction For Repeated Sexual Assaults On 14-Year-Old, Cuts 30-Year Simple Term To 15 Years’ Rigorous Imprisonment

The victim went missing on 5 December 2014, aged below eighteen according to the prosecution, and was recovered from Akbarpur, Uttar Pradesh, on 13 February 2015.

She testified that the appellant, a family acquaintance, had taken her away and repeatedly sexually assaulted her.

At recovery, she was found to be pregnant; the pregnancy was subsequently terminated.

The Trial Court convicted the appellant under Sections 363 and 506 IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act, sentencing him to five years’ simple imprisonment under Section 363, two years’ simple imprisonment under Section 506, and thirty years’ simple imprisonment under Section 6, with the sentences to run concurrently.

The appellant appealed against the conviction and sentence under Section 415(2) BNSS.

A sexual-offence conviction may rest on the victim’s sole testimony where it is cogent, consistent on material particulars and inspires confidence; corroboration is not invariably required (Rai Sandeep v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2012) 8 SCC 21, and Nirmal Premkumar v. State, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 260).

Under the POCSO Act, the presumptions in Sections 29 and 30 arise only after the prosecution establishes the requisite foundational facts, and a child’s consent to sexual intercourse is immaterial.

Section 6, as applicable to offences committed in 2014–15, prescribed rigorous imprisonment of at least ten years, extendable to life; the 2019 enhancement could not apply retrospectively under Article 20(1) of the Constitution (Satauram Mandavi v. State of Chhattisgarh, MANU/SC/0983/2025).

Sentencing must be proportionate and account for the offence, the offender and the possibility of reformation (Gopal Singh v. State of Uttarakhand, (2013) 7 SCC 545).

The appellate court may alter the nature or extent of sentence under Section 386(b)(iii) CrPC.

The Court accepted the school record and affidavit proved through PW-4, together with the parents’ evidence, as establishing that the victim was under eighteen; the defence produced no reliable evidence supporting its assertion that she was born in 1997.

It found her account consistent on the appellant’s identity, the taking and confinement, and the repeated assaults.

The pregnancy and ultrasound findings corroborated sexual intercourse during the relevant period, though the inconclusive DNA report did not identify the appellant as the biological father.

The Court held that discrepancies and omissions in the recovery investigation did not displace the victim’s testimony or the evidence corroborating her recovery.

It therefore upheld the convictions.

On sentence, it found that thirty years’ simple imprisonment was not adequately justified and, in any event, did not conform to Section 6’s requirement of rigorous imprisonment.

Considering the offence’s gravity alongside the appellant’s age, antecedents and period in custody, it substituted fifteen years’ rigorous imprisonment.

The fine and default sentence under Section 6, the sentences under Sections 363 and 506 IPC, and the direction that all substantive sentences run concurrently remained unchanged.

The appellant was entitled to set-off for detention already undergone in accordance with law.