Delhi HC Upholds Maternal Uncle’s 6-Year POCSO Sentence, Finding 7-Year-Old Niece’s Testimony Reliable Despite Grandmother’s Trial U-Turn

The appellant was convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge (FTSC-POCSO), North District, of offences under Sections 354, 354A, 354B and 506(1) IPC, and Sections 9(m) and 9(n), punishable under Section 10 of the POCSO Act, for alleged sexual misconduct against his approximately seven-year-old niece.

He was sentenced to a maximum of six years’ rigorous imprisonment, with substantive sentences to run concurrently.

On appeal under Section 415(2), read with Sections 424 and 528 BNSS, he challenged the child victim’s credibility, relying on inconsistencies between her statements, the grandmother’s and father’s failure to support the prosecution, an alleged motive for false implication, and the non-examination of the victim’s sister.

The Court applied Sections 354, 354A, 354B and 506(1) IPC and Sections 9(m), 9(n) and 10 of the POCSO Act, under which the appellant had been charged and convicted.

It reiterated that a sexual-assault victim’s credible testimony may alone sustain a conviction; corroboration is not a rule, and minor discrepancies do not warrant rejection of an otherwise trustworthy account. The Court relied on Ganesan v. State of Tamil Nadu, MANU/SC/0763/2020, and State of Himachal Pradesh v. Sanjay Kumar @ Sunny, (2017) 2 SCC 51, for these principles.

It also applied the principle that a witness’s failure to support the prosecution, or the omission to examine every person who may have been present, does not by itself defeat an otherwise sufficient case.

The Court found that the child victim consistently identified the appellant and maintained the essential account of the alleged incident; the differences in her accounts concerning the incident’s description, her sister’s presence and the timing of disclosure did not, given her age, discredit its core.

The hospital medical history recorded the allegation against the appellant before trial and was treated as providing assurance to her testimony, though not as proof by itself.

The grandmother’s retraction and the father’s lack of eyewitness knowledge did not negate the child’s evidence; nor did the prior family dispute establish fabrication. The sister’s non-examination was not fatal because the victim herself testified and was cross-examined.

Finding no perversity or material infirmity in the Trial Court’s assessment, the Court declined to interfere.

The appeal was dismissed, and the judgment of conviction dated 14 November 2024 and order on sentence dated 19 December 2024 were upheld.