Delhi High Court
Hiran vs The State Govt Of Nct Delhi on 21 July, 2025
Author: Swarana Kanta Sharma
Bench: Swarana Kanta Sharma
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 21.07.2025
+ CRL.A. 215/2025 & CRL.M.(BAIL) 359/2025
HIRAN .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Dhruva Bhagat, Advocate
(DHCLSC)
versus
THE STATE GOVT OF NCT DELHI .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Rajkumar, APP for the
State
CORAM:
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE SWARANA KANTA SHARMA
JUDGMENT
DR. SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, J
1. The appellant Hiran has approached this Court by way of this
appeal, setting aside of the judgment dated 30.09.2024 [hereafter
„impugned judgment‟] and order on sentence dated 26.10.2024
[hereafter „impugned order on sentence‟] passed by learned
Additional Sessions Judge-01(POCSO), North-West, Rohini Courts,
Delhi [hereafter „Trial Court‟] in SC No. 334/22 arising out of FIR
bearing no. 213/2022, registered on 18.02.2022 at Police Station
Ashok Vihar, Delhi, whereby he has been convicted for commission
of offence punishable under Sections 363/376(3) of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860 [hereafter „IPC‟] and Section 4 of the Protection of
CRL.A. 215/2025 Page 1 of 18
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:25.07.2025
18:52:38
Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 [hereafter „POCSO Act‟].
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
2. The gravamen of the prosecution case is that on 18.02.2022,
the complainant „P‟ lodged a missing report regarding her daughter
(victim) „N‟, aged about 13 years, stating that on 16.02.2022 at about
9:00 AM, she had left for work and, upon returning home around
2:00 PM, she found her daughter missing. On her complaint, the
present FIR was registered, initially for the offence under Section 363
of the IPC. However, on 19.02.2022, the complainant, along with her
daughter, visited the police station and informed that the daughter
had returned. The complainant informed that her daughter had
disclosed that she had spent the night at the house of an unknown
person. The complainant also produced ₹2,000/-, stating that the said
amount had been given by that unknown person to her daughter, who
had kept her at his house for the night.
3. Thereafter, the medical examination of the victim was
conducted, first at Deep Chand Bandhu Hospital, Ashok Vihar,
Delhi, and then at Bhagwan Mahavir Hospital, Pitampura, Delhi, and
her MLC was obtained, wherein she disclosed details of the sexual
assault committed upon her. Samples and exhibits, including the
sexual assault evidence kit, were collected and seized.
4. The statement of the victim was recorded under Section 161 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [hereafter „Cr.P.C.‟], and
thereafter under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. before the learned Magistrate
CRL.A. 215/2025 Page 2 of 18
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:25.07.2025
18:52:38
on 20.02.2022. In her statement, she revealed that, out of anger after
being scolded by her mother, she had left home and sat in a park.
However, while wandering through the streets, she lost her way and
remained in the park for two days. On the morning of 18.02.2022,
while still in the park, she met one uncle (the accused), who enquired
about her residence and offered to drop her home. However, he took
her to his jhuggi (hut), where he prepared food, fed her, and she
subsequently fell asleep. Thereafter, the accused established physical
relations with her. Later, he gave her food, clothes, and money, and
sent her back. On the basis of the victim‟s MLC and her statements,
Sections 376 of IPC and Section 4 of the POCSO Act were added to
the FIR.
5. During investigation, the Investigating Officer, along with the
complainant and the victim, went to the Lal Bagh area to search for
the accused. On the pointing out of the victim, the accused/appellant
Hiran was arrested from jhuggi no. 91, T Huts, Lal Bagh, Azadpur,
Delhi. The victim identified the appellant Hiran as the person who
had committed the offence in question. The appellant was thus
arrested on 20.02.2022 in connection with the present case, and his
medical examination, including potency test, was conducted. The I.O.
also obtained the school records of the victim to ascertain her age,
and her date of birth was found to be 07.07.2009. Further, the FSL
report was later obtained and filed by way of a supplementary charge
sheet.
6. Charges were framed against the appellant on 30.05.2022 for
CRL.A. 215/2025 Page 3 of 18
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:25.07.2025
18:52:38
offence under Sections 363/376(2)(f)(k) of the IPC, and Sections
3(a)/4 of the POCSO Act. Later, the charge was altered to Sections
363/376(3) of the IPC and Section 3(a)/4 of the POCSO Act.
7. During the course of the trial, the prosecution examined 10
witnesses. The statement of the accused was recorded under Section
313 of the Cr.P.C., but he did not lead any defence evidence. After
hearing the final arguments on behalf of both sides, the learned Trial
Court, vide the impugned judgment, found the appellant guilty of the
offences under Sections 363 and 376(3) of the IPC and Section 4 of
the POCSO Act. The concluding portion of the judgment reads as
under:
“Conclusion
49. In the light of above discussion, the testimony of
prosecution witnesses are found to be trustworthy and reliable,
and the prosecution has succeeded in proving the guilt of the
accused, thus having committed offence as described under
Section 4(2) POCSO Act and the offence punishable under
Section 363/376(3) IPC. Accordingly accused Hiran stands
convicted for the offence as mentioned above….”
8. Thereafter, by way of the impugned order on sentence, the
learned Trial Court awarded rigorous imprisonment for a period of 20
years along with a fine of ₹20,000 for the offence under Section 4 of
the POCSO Act, and rigorous imprisonment for a period of 5 years
along with a fine of ₹5,000 for the offence under Section 363 of the
IPC. The relevant portion of the order on sentence reads as under:
“…6. The psychological scars of the sexual abuses during
childhood are indelible and they keep haunting the individual
forever thereby hindering their proper physical andCRL.A. 215/2025 Page 4 of 18
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:25.07.2025
18:52:38
psychological development. The convict allured the victim
child to leave her at her house and thus enticed her away from
lawful implied guardianship of her mother and committed
penetrative sexual assault with her. Thus, the penalty awarded
to the convict should commensurate with the gravity of the
loathsome act so as it serves as an effective deterrance to the
like minded persons. However, the mitigating circumstance
should also not be lost sight of while awarding the sentence.
7. The convict in the present case has been held liable to be
punished u\s 363/376(3) IPC and u/s 4(2) POCSO Act for
having committed penetrative sexual assault upon the victim.
However, the convict cannot be punished for the same offence
under the separate provisions of law.
8. The offence u/s 4(2) POCSO Act and Section 376(3) IPC are
the offences provided in two different Acts which are in the
same nature. As per Section 42 of the POCSO Act, it has been
provided that:
***
9. Hence, it has been provided that the provisions of POCSO
Act shall have overriding effect on the provision of the other
Act. The punishment u/s 4 (2) POCSO Act and Section 376(3)
IPC is the same and therefore the convict is being awarded
punishment u/s 4 (2) POCSO Act. Further, the convict has also
committed the offence u/s 363 IPC.
10. Taking into consideration the aggravating and mitigating
circumstances including gravity of the offence, age of the child
victim and the convict, the family condition of the convict and
the child victim, social and economic factors governing them,
the convict is sentenced for 20 years (Twenty years) rigorous
imprisonment for the offence punishable u/s 4 (2) POCSO Act.
He is also sentenced to 5 years (Five years) rigorous
imprisonment for the offence u/s 363 IPC. The convict be
given benefit of Section 428 CrPC (u/s 468 BNSS) and the
period of detention undergone by him be set off against the
sentence of imprisonment. Till date, the convict has suffered
total imprisonment of 02 years 08 months and 06 days in this
case. All the sentence run concurrently…”
9. Aggrieved by his conviction, the appellant has preferred the
present appeal before this Court.
CRL.A. 215/2025 Page 5 of 18
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:25.07.2025
18:52:38
SUBMISSIONS BEFORE THE COURT
10. The learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the
impugned judgment is liable to be set aside as it is contrary to law,
equity, justice, and fair play, and is not based on a correct
appreciation of the facts on record. It is argued that the learned Trial
Court has failed to properly evaluate the evidence and has rendered
the impugned judgment in a mechanical manner, relying on
conjectures and surmises. It is submitted that the learned Trial Court
erred in not appreciating that the prosecution failed to establish the
foundational facts necessary to invoke the presumption under Section
29 of the POCSO Act. Hence, the said presumption could not be
validly raised against the appellant. The learned counsel has also
argued that the conviction cannot rest solely on the testimony of the
victim, particularly when her statement suffers from inconsistencies
and material improvements. It is contended that PW-1 and PW-3 are
interested witnesses, and as such, their uncorroborated testimonies
should be viewed with caution. Moreover, the learned Trial Court
failed to appreciate that no independent public eyewitness was cited,
despite the presence of members of the public at the spot. The
investigating agency has not offered any explanation for the non-
joining of independent witnesses. It is further submitted that although
CCTV cameras were installed in the park, the police failed to produce
any CCTV footage, which raises serious doubts about the
prosecution‟s version and reflects lack of proper investigation. It is
contended that the victim was in love with one Firoz and had
CRL.A. 215/2025 Page 6 of 18
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:25.07.2025
18:52:38
voluntarily accompanied him to the house of the appellant. The
learned counsel has also pointed out that the DNA examination report
is negative, as the alleles from the source of Exhibit C (blood sample
of the appellant) did not match with the alleles from the source of
Exhibits A1 and A2 (vaginal swab and smear of the victim). It is
further argued that material witnesses, such as the appellant‟s
neighbours, were not examined by the prosecution, which weakens
the prosecution case. It is also submitted that the documents relied
upon by the prosecution do not conclusively prove that the victim
was below 18 years of age at the time of the incident. Therefore, it is
prayed that the appellant be given the benefit of doubt and the
impugned judgment of conviction be set aside.
11. The learned APP for the State, on the other hand, has argued
that the victim was 12 years of age at the time of the incident, as
established from the school records. It is submitted that the statement
of the victim clearly reveals that the appellant had taken her to his
residence and committed the alleged offence. It is contended that the
prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt, and the
learned Trial Court has rightly relied upon the consistent and credible
testimony of the victim. It is argued that the learned ASJ has passed a
well-reasoned and detailed judgment based on a correct appreciation
of law and evidence. It is thus submitted that there is no infirmity or
illegality in the impugned judgment and order on sentence, and that
the appeal, being devoid of merit, deserves to be dismissed.
CRL.A. 215/2025 Page 7 of 18
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:25.07.2025
18:52:38
12. This Court has heard arguments addressed by learned
counsel for the appellant and learned APP for the State, and has
perused the case file including the trial court record.
ANALYSIS & FINDINGS
13. Before proceeding to examine the contentions raised on behalf
of the appellant, it is pertinent to first consider the testimony of the
two material witnesses in the present case, i.e. the victim „N‟ and her
mother/the complainant „P‟, as well as the version put forth by the
appellant.
14. The victim „N‟, who was examined as PW-3, deposed before
the learned Trial Court that on 16.02.2022, she had left her house
without informing anyone, as her mother had scolded her. After
leaving home, she went to Hathoda Ram Park, thinking that she
would sit there for a while and return home once her mother‟s anger
had subsided. While sitting in the park, she began to worry that if
someone who knew her mother saw her there, they might inform her
mother, which could lead to further scolding. Fearing this, she left the
park and started walking ahead, but eventually lost her way. On the
way, she asked a lady about her location and was informed that she
was in Lal Bagh. She remained in a park in the Lal Bagh area for two
days. On 18.02.2022, while she was still in the park, one man (the
appellant herein) approached her and asked why she was sitting
alone. She told him that she had lost her way. The man then asked her
to come with him, saying that he would drop her home. The appellant
CRL.A. 215/2025 Page 8 of 18
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:25.07.2025
18:52:38
took her to his jhuggi (hut), offered her food, and asked her to sleep,
stating that he too would go to sleep. However, after she fell asleep,
the appellant committed wrong acts with her, despite her resistance.
She reminded him that he had earlier said he treated her like his
daughter. In response, the appellant asked her to sleep again, saying
he would just watch something on his mobile phone. While she was
asleep, the appellant removed her salwar (pants) and committed
penetrative sexual assault on her. The following morning, he gave her
a set of new clothes, asked her to bathe and change. Thereafter, he
took her in an auto-rickshaw and dropped her a short distance from
her house. Before leaving, he handed her ₹2,000. Thereafter, the
victim reached her home and informed her mother about this
incident, who then took her to the police station. The victim/PW-3
correctly identified the appellant before the learned Trial Court, as
the person who did the wrong acts with her, also identified the ₹2,000
currency notes handed over to the police.
15. PW-1, the mother of the victim and the complainant in the
present case, deposed that on 16.02.2022, she left for work at about
9:00 AM and returned around 2:00 PM to find that her daughter „N”‟,
aged about 13 years, was missing. After waiting for two days, she
lodged a complaint at Police Station Ashok Vihar (Ex. PW1/A) and
submitted a photograph of her daughter. Eventually, the victim
returned home and disclosed that she had left the house following a
scolding by her mother and gone to Ram Park. After losing her way,
she reached Lal Bagh, where she met a man who took her to his
CRL.A. 215/2025 Page 9 of 18
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:25.07.2025
18:52:38
jhuggi and committed rape upon her. On the following day, he gave
her new clothes, dropped her near Shri Ram Chowk in an auto-
rickshaw, and handed her ₹2,000. The complainant took the victim to
the police chowki and handed over the ₹2,000 to the police, which
was seized vide memo Ex. PW1/3. The victim was first taken to Deep
Chand Bandhu Hospital, but due to the unavailability of a lady
doctor, she was referred to Bhagwan Mahavir Hospital, where she
was medically examined. Her statement under Section 164 of the
Cr.P.C. was recorded before the Magistrate at Rohini Court. On the
way to the court, the victim indicated that she could identify the
house of the person who had committed the offence. She led the
police to Lal Bagh, pointed out a particular jhuggi, and identified the
person appellant inside as the perpetrator, who was then apprehended
and arrested in the present case. The complainant PW-1 duly
identified the appellant before the learned Trial Court and also
identified the ₹2,000 currency notes handed over to the police.
16. Insofar as the stand taken by the appellant Hiran before the
learned Trial Court is concerned, in his statement recorded under
Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., he denied the allegations against him in
totality in response to the incriminating evidence put to him. He
further stated that he had found the victim child alone in the park and
had taken her to his house. He admitted to having given her ₹2,000
and stated that he had dropped her near Shri Ram Chowk in an auto-
rickshaw. However, he denied having committed rape upon her and
claimed that he has been falsely implicated in the present case.
CRL.A. 215/2025 Page 10 of 18
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:25.07.2025
18:52:38
17. Having taken note of the above, this Court shall now consider
the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the
prosecution failed to prove with certainty that the victim was below
18 years of age at the time of the incident. In this regard, the record
reflects that the prosecution relied upon documents relating to the
victim‟s admission in school, which were duly provided by the
concerned school authorities. As per the school admission form and
the admission register, the victim was admitted to school on
17.07.2015, and her date of birth was recorded as 07.07.2009. This
would place her age at about 12 years and 7 months at the time of the
incident.
18. It is also significant to note that at no stage during the trial did
the appellant raise any objection or dispute with respect to the age of
the victim. No questions were also put to any prosecution witness
challenging the age reflected in the school records. In fact, the
impugned judgment records that the appellant expressly admitted the
documents relating to the victim‟s age, including the school
admission records marked as Ex. PX1/5, under Section 294 of the
Cr.P.C., thereby dispensing with the need for formal proof.
19. In light of the above, there remains no doubt that the victim
was a child as defined under Section 2(1)(d) of the POCSO Act,
being below 18 years of age on the date of the incident. Accordingly,
this Court finds no merit in the contention raised on behalf of the
appellant regarding the age of the victim.
CRL.A. 215/2025 Page 11 of 18
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:25.07.2025
18:52:38
20. As regards the contention of the learned counsel for the
appellant that PW-1 and PW-3 are interested witnesses and that their
uncorroborated testimonies ought to have been viewed with caution,
this Court finds no merit in the same. PW-1 is the complainant and
mother of the victim, while PW-3 is the victim child herself. It is well
settled in law that merely being related to the victim does not
discredit a witness, unless there are material contradictions or reasons
to doubt the credibility of their version. A careful perusal of the
record reveals that the testimony of the victim child „N‟ (PW-3) has
remained consistent from the very inception of the case. She narrated
the same version of events at all material stages – including her
statement under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. before the police, the history
recorded in the MLC, her statement recorded under Section 164 of
the Cr.P.C. before the learned Magistrate, and finally during her
deposition in court. At all these stages, her version remained
consistent, specific, and detailed. Further, during the investigation,
she had identified the place of incident i.e. the house of the appellant
and the site plan was prepared at her instance. The accused was
arrested pursuant to her statement, and she later identified him before
the learned Trial Court. Significantly, her cross-examination did not
reveal any material contradictions or omissions that would impair the
credibility of her version. Her testimony is thus found to be cogent,
credible, and of sterling quality. As far as PW-1 is concerned, i.e. the
mother of the victim, her testimony also remained consistent.
Importantly, there is complete harmony between the depositions of
CRL.A. 215/2025 Page 12 of 18
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:25.07.2025
18:52:38
PW-1 and PW-3 on all material particulars.
21. With regard to the argument that no independent public
eyewitness was examined, this Court is of the opinion that such non-
examination is not fatal to the prosecution case. The learned Trial
Court in the impugned judgment has noted the decision of Hon‟ble
Supreme Court in Ajmer Singh v. State of Haryana: (2010) 3 SCC
746, wherein it was held that it may not be possible to find
independent witnesses at all places and that the obligation to take
public witnesses is not absolute. The learned Trial Court has also
noted that the PW-9/I.O. in her testimony had stated that she had
inquired from the neighbours of the accused for their statement,
however, they had refused to give the same.
22. It is now a settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that the
testimony of a sole witness, including the prosecutrix in sexual
offences, can form the basis of conviction, if found to be wholly
reliable and trustworthy. In the present case, this Court is of the view
that the testimony of the victim is not only consistent but also
inspires confidence and does not suffer from any material
embellishment. Therefore, the argument regarding interested
witnesses and absence of independent eyewitnesses is misconceived
and stands rejected. As far as the contention regarding the non-
production of CCTV footage from the park, despite the alleged
presence of cameras, is concerned, the same is devoid of any merit.
The mere absence of CCTV footage does not weaken the
prosecution‟s case, particularly when the testimony of the victim is
CRL.A. 215/2025 Page 13 of 18
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:25.07.2025
18:52:38
found to be consistent, credible, and trustworthy.
23. As regards the contention of the appellant that the DNA
examination report does not support the prosecution case, since the
alleles from the source of Exhibit C (blood sample of the appellant)
did not match with those from the source of Exhibits A1 and A2
(vaginal swab and smear of the victim), this Court finds that such an
argument does not advance the appellant‟s case in the present facts
and circumstances. It is pertinent to note that the alleged incident of
sexual assault took place on the night of 18.02.2022, whereas the
medical examination of the victim and collection of forensic samples
were carried out on 20.02.2022 i.e. after a gap of about two days.
Significantly, the victim had clearly stated that on the morning of
19.02.2022, i.e., the next day of the incident, the accused had made
her take a bath before leaving her at Shri Ram Chowk. She also
categorically disclosed before the doctor at the time of her medical
examination that the accused had given her shampoo to wash her
hair, cut her nails, made her take bath and change her entire clothes.
Apparently, it was the present appellant who had destroyed the
biological evidence, and thus ensuring that there remained no proof
of the crime he committed. Thus, this intervening act of accused
making the victim take bath, coupled with the passage of time, could
plausibly have resulted in the removal or degradation of biological
evidence, thereby explaining the absence of DNA traces of the
appellant in the vaginal swab and smear. Ergo, in view of the credible
and consistent testimony of the victim, the lack of matching DNA in
CRL.A. 215/2025 Page 14 of 18
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:25.07.2025
18:52:38
the samples cannot be considered fatal to the prosecution case, and
this contention of the appellant is, therefore, rejected.
24. In the above background, this Court notes that firstly, the
appellant has been convicted for offence under Section 363 of IPC,
i.e. for offence of kidnapping from lawful guardianship. From the
evidence on record, including the testimony of PW-1 (the mother of
the victim) and PW-3 (the victim herself), as well as the statement of
the appellant recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., it stands clearly
established that the appellant had taken the minor victim to his house
and kept her there without the consent of her lawful guardian. PW-1
categorically stated that her daughter went missing on 16.02.2022
and that she lodged the FIR on 18.02.2022. PW-3 has consistently
deposed that on 18.02.2022, while she was at Lal Bagh, the appellant
approached her on the pretext of taking her home but instead took her
to his residence. Even if the child had earlier left her home
voluntarily, once the appellant took her into his custody and kept her
at his residence without the knowledge or consent of her guardian,
the offence under Section 363 of IPC stood attracted. The age of the
victim at the time of the incident, i.e. about 12 years and 7 months is
not disputed, as noted in earlier discussion. Therefore, the findings of
the learned Trial Court in this regard do not call for interference. This
Court finds no infirmity in the conviction of the appellant under
Section 363 of IPC.
25. Insofar as the conviction of the appellant for the offence under
Section 376(3) of the IPC and Section 4(2) of the POCSO Act is
CRL.A. 215/2025 Page 15 of 18
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:25.07.2025
18:52:38
concerned, this Court finds that the testimony of the victim (PW-3),
recorded before the learned Trial Court, clearly and consistently
narrates the incident of sexual assault committed by the appellant.
Her version is not only cogent and credible but also finds support
from her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and the
sexual assault history as recorded in the MLC wherein she had
disclosed the details of how the appellant herein had sexually
assaulted her. Though the victim was subjected to cross-examination,
nothing substantial emerged to discredit her testimony or shake her
version of the incident. The appellant, in his statement recorded under
Section 313 of Cr.P.C., merely claimed innocence and alleged false
implication. However, he admitted to having been with the victim on
the relevant dates and did not offer any plausible explanation for the
same. More significantly, despite the opportunity being granted, the
appellant did not lead any defence evidence.
26. It is also pertinent to note that Sections 29 and 30 of the
POCSO Act introduce statutory presumptions regarding the
culpability and mental state of the accused once the foundational
facts of the commission of the offence are established. In the present
case, the prosecution has successfully discharged its initial burden by
proving the age of the victim, her consistent testimony regarding the
offence, and the presence of the appellant with the minor during the
relevant period. The appellant has failed to rebut these presumptions
either by way of cross-examination of the victim or by leading any
defence evidence.
CRL.A. 215/2025 Page 16 of 18
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:25.07.2025
18:52:38
27. In view of the above, this Court finds no infirmity in the
conclusion drawn by the learned Trial Court convicting the appellant
under Section 376(3) of IPC, as the victim was admittedly below 16
years of age at the time of the incident, and under Section 4(2) of the
POCSO Act.
28. As regards the aspect of sentencing, it is noted that the
appellant has been awarded rigorous imprisonment for a period of 20
years for the offence punishable under Section 4(2) of the POCSO
Act. Section 4(2) mandates that whoever commits penetrative sexual
assault on a child below sixteen years of age shall be punished with
imprisonment for a term not less than twenty years, which may
extend to imprisonment for the remainder of the natural life of that
person, and shall also be liable to fine. In the present case, the
sentence awarded to the appellant is the minimum prescribed under
the statute. Accordingly, no interference is warranted with respect to
the said sentence. Further, for the offence under Section 363 IPC,
which prescribes a maximum punishment of seven years, the
appellant has been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of
five years. The sentence awarded is well within the statutory limits
and does not suffer from any illegality or perversity.
29. It is also pertinent to observe that the victim in the present case
was a child of 13 years of age, who was taken by the appellant to his
house and subjected to penetrative sexual assault. The physical and
psychological trauma suffered by the victim, and the long-lasting
emotional scars inflicted upon her at such a tender age, cannot be
CRL.A. 215/2025 Page 17 of 18
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:25.07.2025
18:52:38
ignored while considering the aspect of sentencing.
30. Thus, in view of the foregoing discussion, this Court finds no
ground to interfere with the impugned judgment of conviction and
order on sentence. The same are accordingly upheld.
31. The present appeal is dismissed alongwith pending application.
32. The judgment be uploaded on the website forthwith.
DR. SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, J
JULY 21, 2025/ns
TD
CRL.A. 215/2025 Page 18 of 18
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:25.07.2025
18:52:38
[ad_1]
Source link