Delhi HC Upholds Neighbour’s POCSO Conviction For Assault On 8-Year-Old, Cuts 20-Year Sentence To 15 Years

The appellant was convicted under Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act), for allegedly sexually assaulting his eight-year-old neighbour on 5 June 2016.

The child disclosed the incident to her mother after complaining of pain; the family reported it to the police on 16 June 2016.

The Trial Court relied principally on the child’s testimony and sentenced the appellant to 20 years’ rigorous imprisonment and a fine of ₹10,000.

In appeal under Section 374(2) CrPC, the appellant challenged the conviction on grounds including inconsistencies, delay, lack of medical and forensic corroboration, tutoring, and false implication arising from an alleged loan dispute; alternatively, he sought a reduction in sentence.

Section 5(m), read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act, addresses aggravated penetrative sexual assault on a child below twelve; the applicable punishment is the version in force on the date of the offence, and a later increase in the statutory minimum cannot be applied retrospectively.

In assessing age, the evidentiary value of school records depends on the source and basis of the date-of-birth entry; the court relied on P. Yuvaprakash v. State and Birka Shiva v. State of Telangana.

A child witness’s testimony must be scrutinised with care, but the possibility of tutoring alone does not justify rejecting it; corroboration is a rule of prudence, not an inflexible requirement, under Pradeep v. State of Haryana.

Delay in reporting a sexual offence is not assessed mechanically and must be considered in context, as stated in State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh.

Absence of fresh injury or hymenal rupture does not, by itself, negate sexual assault; the court also applied the principle that an unavailable DNA profile neither identifies nor excludes an accused.

Sentencing is guided by proportionality and relevant aggravating and mitigating circumstances, including antecedents and potential for reformation, under Gopal Singh v. State of Uttarakhand.

The Court accepted the school record because the date-of-birth entry was supported by the mother’s affidavit and testimony, establishing that the victim was eight years old at the time.

It found that variations concerning the events preceding the assault and the child’s response to a question about anal penetration did not displace her specific account of penile-vaginal penetration; the alleged tutoring remained unsupported, and the mother’s evidence explained the disclosure and subsequent reporting.

The medical examination occurred eleven days after the incident, and the absence of a fresh tear did not contradict the child’s account; the FSL report generated no male DNA profile and therefore neither implicated nor excluded the appellant.

The alleged loan defence was not substantiated by evidence of a repayment demand or dispute.

On sentence, the Court applied the unamended Section 6 in force on the offence date and considered the victim’s age and the offence’s gravity alongside the appellant’s conduct in custody and lack of established antecedents.

It partly allowed the appeal by reducing the sentence from 20 to 15 years’ rigorous imprisonment; the fine of ₹10,000 and the six-month default sentence remained unchanged.