[ad_1]
Delhi High Court
Dinesh vs State on 23 June, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on:23.06.2025
+ CRL.A. 688/2023 & CRL.M.(BAIL) 1318/2023
DINESH .....Appellant
versus
STATE .....Respondent
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Appellant : Mr. Harsh Prabhakar, Adv. (DHCLSC)
with Mr. Dhruv Chaudhary and Mr.
Shubham Sourav, Advs.
For the Respondent : Mr. Sunil Kumar Gautam, APP for the
State with SI Rajni Kant, PS Kirti Nagar.
Mr. Rohan J. Alva, Adv. (Amicus Curiae)
for the victim with Mr. Anant Sanghi, Adv.
CORAM
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN
JUDGMENT
1. The present appeal is filed against the judgment dated
16.05.2023 (hereafter ‘impugned judgment’) and order on sentence
dated 31.07.2023 (hereafter ‘impugned order on sentence’) passed
by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (‘ASJ’), Tis Hazari Courts,
Delhi in New SC. No. 664/2017 arising out of FIR No. 321/2017
(‘FIR’).
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SHIKHA
SEHGAL CRL.A. 688/2023 Page 1 of 20
Signing Date:26.06.2025
18:50:14
2. By the impugned judgment, the learned ASJ convicted the
appellant for the offences under Sections 506 of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860 (‘IPC‘) and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from
Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (‘POCSO Act‘). By the impugned order
on sentence, the learned ASJ sentenced the appellant to undergo
rigorous imprisonment for a period of 15 years and to pay a fine for a
sum of ₹10,000/- for the commission of the offence under Section 6 of
the POCSO Act.
3. The FIR was registered on a complaint given by the father of
the victim. The complainant resided with the widow of his brother
‘Ms. G’ and his children. It is alleged that on 17.05.2017 at about 5:00
PM when Ms. G returned home from work, she saw blood on the back
side of the pajama of the victim. Upon asking, the victim alleged that
while he was taking a bath, the appellant who resided in the adjacent
jhuggi caught hold of the victim and took him to his jhuggi. It is
alleged that thereafter the appellant forcefully inserted his penis in the
anus of the victim and also threatened him of dire consequences
should the victim disclose about the incident to anyone. Thereafter,
Ms. G telephoned the complainant who then came home and made a
call at 100 number.
4. The learned ASJ, by the impugned judgment, convicted the
appellant of the offences under Section 506 of the IPC and Section 6
of the POCSO Act. It was noted that the victim boy was around 6
years old at the time when the incident took place. The learned ASJ
took into consideration the testimony of the victim who stated that on
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SHIKHA
SEHGAL CRL.A. 688/2023 Page 2 of 20
Signing Date:26.06.2025
18:50:14
the day of the incident, he had gone to the house of the appellant to
take a bath. The victim categorically alleged that the appellant had
pulled down his pants as well as that of the victim, and had inserted
his penis in the anus of the victim. The victim further deposed that as a
consequence of the same, he experienced pain and also started
bleeding. He further deposed that the appellant had thereafter washed
the victim’s underwear. The learned ASJ noted that the testimony of
the victim was also corroborated by his father and aunt though they
were not eye witnesses to the incident. It was noted that nothing
emerged in the cross-examination of the said witnesses so as to shake
the story of the prosecution.
5. The learned ASJ noted that the FSL report indicated that the
DNA generated from the blood and semen stains from the clothing of
the victim matched with the DNA generated from the blood and other
samples of the appellant. It was noted that the author of the FSL
report, in her cross examination, stated that the samples in the present
case had not degraded or putrefied and further denied the suggestion
that the genotype analysis may contain error.
6. It was noted that the victim was a young boy aged 5 ½ years at
the time of the commission of the offence, and that minor
contradictions in the statement of the victim could be ignored. It was
noted that mere absence of external injury in the MLC cannot be a
ground to discard the testimony of the victim. It was noted that while
the appellant, in his defence, had stated that he had been falsely
implicated on account of a quarrel with the victim’s father, he had not
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SHIKHA
SEHGAL CRL.A. 688/2023 Page 3 of 20
Signing Date:26.06.2025
18:50:14
led any evidence to corroborate his contentions. It was further noted
that in his cross-examination, the victim denied about the existence of
any dispute between his family and that of the appellant. It was noted
that the appellant had failed to rebut the presumption of guilt raised
against him as per Section 29 of the POCSO Act. Consequently, the
learned ASJ convicted the appellant of the offences under Section 506
of the IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act.
Submissions on behalf of the appellant
7. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the learned
ASJ erred in convicting the appellant for the offences under Section
506 of the IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act. He submitted that
there are significant inconsistencies in regard to the apparel worn by
the victim when the incident took place. He submitted on being re-
examined by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the specific
point of the apparel worn by the victim at the time when the incident
took place, the victim unequivocally stated that he was wearing
‘jeans’. He submitted that on the contrary, Ms. G stated that the victim
was wearing a ‘night suit of white colour.’
8. He submitted that the complainant, on the other hand, identified
a pajama being white, red and green coloured as the one worn by the
victim when the offence was committed. He submitted that the FSL
described the piece of clothing as a ‘lower – undergarment of the
victim’. He submitted that the apparel worn by the victim assumes
significance considering that the victim was not made to identify the
clothing items that were sent for scientific analysis. He submitted that
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SHIKHA
SEHGAL CRL.A. 688/2023 Page 4 of 20
Signing Date:26.06.2025
18:50:14
this vital omission goes to the root of the matter thereby rendering the
outcome of the forensic analysis meaningless.
9. He submitted that the medical examination of the appellant took
place at 11:50 PM on 17.09.2017 after which the biological specimens
were collected from Dr. Shahid (not examined). He submitted that
Police Store Room Register (Malkhana) indicates that the specimens
were deposited on the same day, that is, on 17.09.2017 itself. He
submitted that it is highly improbable that in a span of merely 10
minutes the medical examination of the appellant was conducted and
the specimens were also deposited in the Malkhana. He submitted that
the same cast a serious doubt on the integrity of the record and is
indicative of tampering.
10. He submitted that the possibility of tampering is further
heightened by the delay in dispatching the case property for forensic
analysis. He submitted that while the specimens were allegedly
collected on 17.09.2017, the same were sent to FSL only on
18.10.2017 after an inordinate and unexplained delay of one month.
11. He submitted that the victim claimed that he bled profusely
after the alleged act took place, however, no incriminating material
such as blood-stained clothing or any trace of evidence was recovered
from the residence of the appellant.
12. He submitted that the very first account of the incident
furnished by the victim is one recorded by the attending medical
professionals at the hospital. He submitted that at that time, despite
knowing the appellant, the identity of the appellant as the perpetrator
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SHIKHA
SEHGAL CRL.A. 688/2023 Page 5 of 20
Signing Date:26.06.2025
18:50:14
was not mentioned. He submitted that the non-disclosure of the
identity of the appellant casts a serious doubt on the case of the
prosecution.
13. He submitted that the testimonies of the family members of the
victim are mutually contradictory and self-destructive. He submitted
that severe contradictions emerge in the version of the prosecution
witnesses. He submitted that as per the deposition of the victim, he
had gone to the house of the appellant to take a bath. He submitted
that on the contrary, Ms. G/PW-3 stated that the appellant had taken
the victim to his house.
14. He submitted that as per the evidence of the victim, his
father/complainant had come home in the afternoon, however, at such
time, the victim deposed that he had not disclosed anything to his
father out of fear. He submitted that as per the testimony of the
complainant/PW-2 himself, he had come home in the evening after
receiving a call about the said incident from Ms. G/PW-3. He
submitted that Ms. G/PW-3 stated that the complainant had come
home at 8:00 PM after receiving a call from her.
15. He submitted that the mucosal tear in the frenulum region of the
appellant cannot be pressed to ascertain the culpability of the appellant
since the same was not put to the appellant in terms of Section 313 of
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
16. He submitted that the MLC of the victim indicates that no fresh
injury was caused to the victim. He submitted that the same
contradicted the evidence given by the victim who deposed that the
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SHIKHA
SEHGAL CRL.A. 688/2023 Page 6 of 20
Signing Date:26.06.2025
18:50:14
sexual assault had led to the bleeding and the blood stains were found
on the clothes which were worn by the victim at the time of incident.
He consequently submitted that the appellant be acquitted of the
offences under Section 506 of the IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO
Act.
Submissions of behalf of the respondent
17. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and the
learned amicus curiae appointed to address arguments on behalf of the
victim submitted that the impugned judgment is reasoned and warrants
no interference. The learned amicus curiae submitted that the victim
consistently maintained that the appellant had inserted his penis in the
victim’s anus. He submitted that same is sufficient to sustain the
conviction of the appellant, and that minor contradictions if any ought
to be ignored.
18. He submitted that merely because no injury was caused to the
victim does not tantamount to mean that no offence had occurred. He
submitted that the FSL report dated 08.03.2018 authoritatively
concluded that the DNA profile generated from the blood sample of
the appellant matched with the DNA profile generated from the blood-
stained underwear of accused and the blood and semen stains found on
the lower of the victim.
19. He submitted that PW-5 who conducted the FSL analysis
specifically stated that the samples had not degraded. He consequently
submitted that the appellant cannot now challenge the FSL report or
the manner in which the samples were deposited since the same were
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SHIKHA
SEHGAL CRL.A. 688/2023 Page 7 of 20
Signing Date:26.06.2025
18:50:14
not challenged by him during the course of the trial.
20. He submitted that the tear on the genital area of the appellant
was the cause of the bleeding which was referred to by the victim in
his testimony. He submitted that the injury suffered by the appellant in
his genitalia by itself indicates that the appellant had engaged in the
commission of penetrative sexual assault.
21. He consequently submitted that in view of the cogent and
consistent testimony of the victim as well as the scientific evidence in
the present case, the prosecution has been able to prove its case
beyond reasonable doubt.
Analysis
22. At the outset, it is relevant to note that while dealing with an
appeal against judgment on conviction and sentence, in exercise of
Appellate Jurisdiction, this Court is required to reappreciate the
evidence in its entirety and apply its mind independently to the
material on record. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Jogi &
Ors. v. The State of Madhya Pradesh : Criminal Appeal No.
1350/2021 had considered the scope of the High Court’s appellate
jurisdiction under Section 374 of the CrPC and held as under:
“9. The High Court was dealing with a substantive appeal under
the provisions of Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
1973. In the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction, the High Court
was required to evaluate the evidence on the record independently
and to arrive at its own findings as regards the culpability or
otherwise of the accused on the basis of the evidentiary material.
As the judgment of the High Court indicates, save and except for
one sentence, which has been extracted above, there has been
virtually no independent evaluation of the evidence on the record.
While considering the criminal appeal under Section 374(2) ofSignature Not Verified
Signed By:SHIKHA
SEHGAL CRL.A. 688/2023 Page 8 of 20
Signing Date:26.06.2025
18:50:14
CrPC, the High Court was duty bound to consider the entirety of
the evidence. The nature of the jurisdiction has been dealt with in a
judgment of this Court in Majjal v State of Haryaya [(2013) 6 SCC
799] , where the Court held:
‘6. In this case what strikes us is the cryptic nature of the
High Court’s observations on the merits of the case. The
High Court has set out the facts in detail. It has mentioned
the names and numbers of the prosecution witnesses.
Particulars of all documents produced in the court along
with their exhibit numbers have been mentioned. Gist of the
trial court’s observations and findings are set out in a long
paragraph. Then there is a reference to the arguments
advanced by the counsel. Thereafter, without any proper
analysis of the evidence almost in a summary way the High
Court has dismissed the appeal. The High Court’s cryptic
reasoning is contained in two short paragraphs. We find
such disposal of a criminal appeal by the High Court
particularly in a case involving charge under Section 302
IPC where the accused is sentenced to life imprisonment
unsatisfactory.
7. It was necessary for the High Court to consider whether
the trial court’s assessment of the evidence and its opinion
that the appellant must be convicted deserve to be
confirmed. This exercise is necessary because the personal
liberty of an accused is curtailed because of the conviction.
The High Court must state its reasons why it is accepting
the evidence on record. The High Court’s acceptable only if
it is supported by reasons. In such appeals it is a court of
first appeal. Reasons cannot be cryptic. By this, we do not
mean that the High Court is expected to write an unduly
long treatise. The judgment may be short but must reflect
proper application of mind to vital evidence and important
submissions which go to the root of the matter. Since this
exercise is not conducted by the High Court, the appeal
deserves to be remanded for a fresh hearing after setting
aside the impugned order.’ ”
(emphasis supplied)
23. The criminal jurisprudence is premised on the principle that a
conviction cannot be sustained on the basis of mere surmises or
conjecture. It is thus for the prosecution to establish, by means of
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SHIKHA
SEHGAL CRL.A. 688/2023 Page 9 of 20
Signing Date:26.06.2025
18:50:14
cogent and credible evidence, each element of the alleged offence that
too beyond reasonable doubt. The standard is not a mere formality but
rather serves as an indispensable safeguard against the risk of
wrongful conviction. Consequently, where the story of the prosecution
is marred with inconsistencies or evidentiary gaps, the benefit of such
doubt ought to be extended to the accused.
24. Accordingly, a meticulous examination of the impugned
judgment as well as the material on record reveals that several
material aspects of the case were either summarily disregarded or
addressed in sweeping generalisations. The reasoning is general, not
granular; broad, but not precise. Notably, the same raises the most
fundamental question that lies at the heart of every criminal trial: Does
the prosecution’s evidence prove the case beyond reasonable doubt?
25. Before delving into the analysis of the material on record
threadbare, it is pertinent to mention that this Court is conscious of the
fact that the victim is a child and minor contradictions would not
adversely impact the matter. It is trite law that the accused can be
convicted solely on the basis of evidence of the victim as long as same
inspires confidence and corroboration is not necessary for the same.
However, when a victim’s testimony is marked by identified flaws or
gaps or provides an insufficient account of the incident, a conviction
cannot be sustained. [Ref: Nirmal Premkumar v. State : 2024 SCC
OnLine SC 260].
26. In the present case, a perusal of the material on record indicates
that the case of the prosecution is marred with blemishes and fails to
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SHIKHA
SEHGAL CRL.A. 688/2023 Page 10 of 20
Signing Date:26.06.2025
18:50:14
establish the case against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. The
same pertains to discrepancies not just in the testimonies of the
witnesses but also casts a shadow on the integrity and reliability of the
scientific findings.
27. The learned ASJ convicted the appellant essentially on the basis
of the testimony of the victim and that the FSL report indicating that
the DNA generated from the blood and semen stains from the clothing
of the victim matched with the DNA generated from the blood and
other samples of the appellant.
28. One of the major grounds taken by the appellant to challenge
the impugned judgment is the discrepancies in the versions of the
prosecution witnesses in regard to the manner in which the alleged
incident occurred and the events that transpired post the commission
of the alleged offence. Upon a scrupulous analysis of the evidence, in
the opinion of this Court, the same has the effect of casting a serious
doubt on the veracity of the case of the prosecution. The same is
summarized as follows:
28.1. First, in relation to the manner in which the victim reached the
appellant’s jhuggi, the victim/PW-1 deposed that he had gone to the
appellant’s jhuggi on the date of the incident to take a shower. On
being cross-examined by the learned counsel for the appellant on this
specific aspect, the victim stated that he used to visit the house of the
appellant everyday to take a shower, and that on the date of incident as
well he had gone to the appellant’s house to take a shower. As
opposed to this, in the version narrated by Ms. G/PW-3, she stated thatSignature Not Verified
Signed By:SHIKHA
SEHGAL CRL.A. 688/2023 Page 11 of 20
Signing Date:26.06.2025
18:50:14
the victim had been forcibly taken away by the appellant. Further, on
being cross-examined by the learned counsel for the appellant, she
denied that the victim ever visited the house of the appellant for taking
a bath. She instead stated that the victim visited the appellant’s house
for playing only.
28.2. Second, on the factum of the time at which the father of the
victim came home on the day of the incident. The prosecution has
argued that Ms. G/PW-3 arrived home in the evening at about 5:00
PM and saw blood stains on the back of the pajama of the victim. It is
the case of the prosecution that upon seeing the blood stains and upon
asking, the victim narrated about the manner in which the incident
took place. Thereafter, Ms. G telephoned the father of the victim who
then came home and made a call at 100 number. From the narrative
pressed by the prosecution, it appears that the father of the victim
came home in the evening after receiving a telephone call from Ms. G
after which a complaint was lodged. A deeper scrutiny of the evidence
reveals that the victim/PW-1, in his evidence, deposed that his
father/PW-2 had come home in the afternoon, however, he had not
disclosed anything to his father out of fear. On the contrary, PW-2
deposed that he had left home for work at about 10:30 am and had
returned home only in the evening after receiving a call from Ms.
G/PW-3. Strangely, no reference is made by PW-2 with regard to
coming home at any time before having received a phone-call by PW-
3. Further, PW-3 also deposed that PW-2 had returned home at about
8:00 PM after receiving a call from her. It is thus unclear whether theSignature Not Verified
Signed By:SHIKHA
SEHGAL CRL.A. 688/2023 Page 12 of 20
Signing Date:26.06.2025
18:50:14
father of the victim had come home only in the evening after receiving
a phone call from PW-3 or had come home even in the afternoon.
28.3. Third, material contradictions emerge on the factum of the
apparel worn by the victim at the time when the alleged incident took
place and the appearance of blood on the apparel of the victim; It is
pertinent to note that PW-1, in his evidence, initially deposed that he
had worn a pant and an underwear on the day of the incident. He
deposed that the appellant had washed his underwear and stated that
“meri pant me bhi khoon lag gaya tha.” On the contrary, on being
cross-examined by the learned counsel for the appellant, PW-1
categorically stated that “us din maine jeans, underwear, shirt,
baniyan pehne hue the.” He further stated that “meri underwear me
khoon lag gaya tha. Aur kisi kapde par khoon nahi laga tha.”
Contrarily, PW-2, in his evidence stated that he had seen blood stains
on the “lower (pajama) of the victim” and on being asked, PW-2
identified one “white, red, green coloured baby lower pajama” as the
one worn by the victim when the incident took place. Furthermore,
PW-3 in her cross examination stated that she had seen stains of red
colour and that the victim was wearing a ‘night suit of white colour.’
Further, the FSL report mentioned the apparel as the ‘lower –
undergarment of the victim’.
At this stage, this Court finds it apposite to mention that the conviction
of the appellant was sustained on the basis of the testimony of the
victim and that the DNA generated from the blood stains from the
clothing of the victim matched with the DNA generated from the
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SHIKHA
SEHGAL CRL.A. 688/2023 Page 13 of 20
Signing Date:26.06.2025
18:50:14
blood and other samples of the appellant. Given that the FSL report
formed the bedrock of the conviction of the appellant, the garment
worn by the victim and the presence/absence of blood on that garment
assumes heightened significance. Discrepancies in the same thus go to
the root of the present case and raises serious doubts on the veracity of
the case of the prosecution.
29. Considering that the testimony of the witnesses is smeared with
manifest discrepancies, this Court shall now consider the other
evidence on record to strive to find the genesis of the incident. In
doing so, it is relevant to examine the chain of events that transpired
post the lodging of the complaint.
30. In accordance with the testimony of PW-4/the investigating
officer, after the receipt of the complaint, the victim was taken to
Aacharya Bhikshu Hospital for medical examination. According to the
version of the prosecution, the alleged incident occurred at 1:00 PM
on 17.09.2017. The MLC report indicates that the medical
examination of the victim was conducted on the same day at 9:45 PM,
that is, within 10 hours of the occurrence of the incident. It is the case
of the prosecution that the appellant had inserted his penis in the
victim’s anus and on account of the same the victim had suffered
immense pain and had also bled profusely. Yet, a perusal of the MLC
report indicates that “no fresh external injury was seen at the time of
medical examination.” The report indicates that the victim did not
suffer any bleeding at the time of the examination. It further indicates
that there was no evidence of any mucosal or perianal tear.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SHIKHA
SEHGAL CRL.A. 688/2023 Page 14 of 20
Signing Date:26.06.2025
18:50:14
31. At this stage, it is pertinent to mention that this Court does not
mean to suggest that an absence of injury to the private part of the
victim per se is fatal to the case of the prosecution. However, in such a
circumstance, where the entire case of the prosecution is that the
appellant forcefully inserted his private part to the victim’s private
part, who is a young boy of 6 years and on account of which the
victim suffered pain and also bled, and considering the fact that the
medical examination was conducted within 10 hours of the occurrence
of the alleged incident, the absence of any injury or bleeding assumes
higher significance. On a conspectus of such facts, the absence of any
injury is a strong circumstance against the prosecution and weighs in
favour of the appellant.
32. Another peculiar circumstance that emerges from a perusal of
the MLC of the victim is that the victim failed to disclose the name of
the appellant as the perpetrator. It is not the case of the prosecution
that the name of the appellant was not known to the victim. In fact, as
per the testimony of the witnesses, the appellant resided in the
neighbourhood and was known to the victim. Although the omission
on the part of the victim to disclose the name of the appellant does not
by itself nullify the case of the of the prosecution, it nonetheless casts
a shadow on the overall credibility of the prosecution’s case.
33. The learned counsel for the appellant further drew the attention
of this Court to the discrepancies in the entry made in the Malkhana
register and the delay in sending the specimens for FSL. From a
perusal of the record, it is borne out that the medical examination of
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SHIKHA
SEHGAL CRL.A. 688/2023 Page 15 of 20
Signing Date:26.06.2025
18:50:14
the appellant was carried out on the same day, that is, on 17.09.2017 at
around 11:50 PM. The Malkhana register, in turn, indicates that the
collected biological specimen of the appellant were deposited in the
Malkhana on the same day that is, on 17.09.2017 itself.
34. At this stage, it becomes imperative to examine the testimony of
the investigating officer/PW-4 with regard to the timeline of the
deposit of the exhibits in the malkhana. As per the evidence of PW-4,
after the collection of the medical exhibits and samples of the
appellant, PW-4 along with the victim/PW-1 and his father/PW-2
visited the place of the incident. Thereafter, PW-4 prepared the site
plan at the instance of the father of the victim and also recorded the
statement of the witnesses. The collected specimens were thereafter
deposited in the malkhana. Considering that the MLC of the appellant
itself was conducted around 11:50 PM, and the chain of events that
transpired after the medical examination of the appellant, it is highly
improbable for the investigating officer to have collected the medical
exhibits of the appellant, visit the scene of the incident, prepare a site
plan, record the statement of the witnesses and also deposit the
medical samples in the malkhana within a mere span of 10 minutes.
The discrepancy in the entry of the malkhana register therefore casts a
doubt on the integrity of the record.
35. The same is further augmented by the delay in sending the case
property for forensic analysis. It is pertinent to note that while as per
the case of the prosecution, the specimens were allegedly collected on
17.09.2017, the same were sent for FSL only on 18.10.2017, that is
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SHIKHA
SEHGAL CRL.A. 688/2023 Page 16 of 20
Signing Date:26.06.2025
18:50:14
after an inordinate delay of more than one month. On being cross-
examined by the learned counsel for the appellant on this specific
aspect, PW-5/forensic examiner only stated that “the samples are not
properly preserved then it may be possible the same may be de-
graded.” The witness further voluntarily stated that “In the present
matter, the samples had not de-graded or putrified.” However, no
explanation has been offered by the prosecution to show why the
specimens were sent for FSL after an inordinate delay of one month.
Considering that the conviction of the appellant was based on the
testimony of the victim and was further premised on the DNA report,
the unexplained delay in sending the exhibits for forensic analysis
further undermines the integrity of the record and consequentially the
case of the prosecution.
36. This Court now turns its gaze to the contention raised by the
learned amicus curiae in relation to the injury detected on the
appellant’s genitalia and the profuse bleeding referred to by the victim
in his testimony. It is contended that the MLC of the appellant reveals
that the appellant had suffered a tear in the penile region. It has
consequently been argued that it is this tear in the appellant’s genital
area that was the source of the bleeding, and that it was the blood of
the appellant and not that of the victim that was referred to by the
victim in his testimony and which appeared on the apparel of the
victim. In contrast, the learned counsel for the appellant contended
that the tear detected on the appellant’s genital area or the aspect
related to the source of blood being that of the appellant and not that
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SHIKHA
SEHGAL CRL.A. 688/2023 Page 17 of 20
Signing Date:26.06.2025
18:50:14
of the victim was never put to the appellant whilst he was been
questioned in terms of Section 313 of the CrPC. It has consequently
been argued that the same cannot now be pressed into service to
ascertain the culpability of the appellant.
37. Being cognizant of the rival submissions of both the parties, and
on a reappraisal of the entire material on record, it is pertinent to note
that the contention raised on behalf of the victim in relation to the
source of the blood being that of the appellant and not that of the
victim has the impact of diluting the entire case of the prosecution. It
is relevant to note that the entire foundation of the case of the
prosecution before the learned Trial Court was that the appellant had
inserted his penis in the victim’s anus on account of which the victim
experienced pain and had also bled. Further, a perusal of the record in
its entirety reveals that the trial proceeded on the pretext that as a
consequence of the alleged incident, it was the victim who suffered
bleeding. Infact, the victim in his testimony himself stated that “Mujhe
bahut dard hua aur khoon bhi aaya.” The victim further deposed that
“Jab mere khoon nikalne laga to unhone mujhe chod diya.” At no
stage was it ever the case of the prosecution, be it in the complaint or
during the course of the trial, that the source of the blood appearing on
the victim’s apparel was that of the appellant and not that of the
victim. Further, as discussed above, serious doubts have been raised in
relation to the victim’s apparel that were sent for FSL examination.
Consequently, considering that no allegation in relation to the source
of blood being that of the appellant was ever raised by the prosecution
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SHIKHA
SEHGAL CRL.A. 688/2023 Page 18 of 20
Signing Date:26.06.2025
18:50:14
and that the entire trial proceeded on the pretext that it was the blood
of the victim and not that of the appellant that appeared on the
victim’s apparel and further considering that the apparel itself on
which the appellant’s blood had appeared is under suspicion, the entire
narrative of the prosecution’s case is diluted. Accordingly, upon
taking a holistic view of the facts of the case, this Court is not inclined
to entertain the said contention raised by the learned amicus.
38. Much emphasis has been laid by the State on the presumption of
commission of offence raised against the appellant in accordance with
Section 29 of the POCSO Act. The same, in the opinion of this Court,
does not aid the case of the prosecution. It is pertinent to note that
while Section 29 of the POCSO Act provides for a presumption as to
the commission of certain offences, the said presumption is not
absolute in nature and only comes into play once the prosecution
establishes the foundational facts [Ref. Altaf Ahmed v. State (GNCTD
of Delhi) : 2020 SCC OnLine Del 1938]. For this reason, in order to
trigger the presumption, it is incumbent on the prosecution to lead
evidence to prove the foundational facts. If the prosecution fails to do
so, in the opinion of this Court, a negative burden cannot be thrust
upon the shoulders of the accused to prove otherwise.
Conclusion
39. The solemn duty of a criminal court is not to convict merely
because an allegation is made, but to convict only when the allegation
is proven beyond reasonable doubt.
40. It is a settled principle that when two views are possible– one
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SHIKHA
SEHGAL CRL.A. 688/2023 Page 19 of 20
Signing Date:26.06.2025
18:50:14
pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other towards his
innocence — the view favourable to the accused must be adopted.
This principle is not a technical rule; it is rooted in the foundational
notion that no person shall be deprived of liberty except through proof
that satisfies the judicial conscience.
41. In the light of the foregoing, this Court is of the view that the
conviction recorded by the learned Trial Court is unsustainable. The
evidence led by the prosecution does not meet the standard of proof
required in a case of this nature. The benefit of doubt must and does
go to the appellant.
42. Accordingly, the impugned judgment and impugned order on
sentence are set aside.
43. The appellant is acquitted of all charges. He shall be released
forthwith, if not required in any other case. The bail bond, if furnished,
stands discharged.
44. The appeal is allowed and disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
Pending application also stands disposed of.
45. This Court also appreciates the effort put in by the learned
Amicus Mr. Rohan J. Alva in assisting the Court.
46. A copy of this order be sent to the concerned Jail
Superintendent for necessary compliance.
AMIT MAHAJAN, J
JUNE 23, 2025
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SHIKHA
SEHGAL CRL.A. 688/2023 Page 20 of 20
Signing Date:26.06.2025
18:50:14
[ad_2]
Source link