Delhi High Court
Vinod Kumar vs State And Anr on 26 June, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on:26.06.2025
+ CRL.A. 691/2023 & CRL.M.(BAIL) 314/2025
VINOD KUMAR .....Appellant
versus
STATE AND ANR .....Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Appellant : Mr. Rajat Sang Sharma, Mr. Sandeep
Singh Nainwal& Mr. Jitender Kumar Mishra,
Advs.
For the Respondents : Mr. Ajay Vikram Singh, APP for the State
SI Shweta, PS- Tilak Nagar
Mr. Pankaj Pathak, Adv. (through VC)
CORAM
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN
JUDGMENT
1. The present appeal is filed against the judgment dated
08.05.2023 (hereafter ‘impugned judgment’) and the order on
sentence dated 27.07.2023 (hereafter ‘impugned order on sentence’)
passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (‘ASJ’), West, Tis
Hazari Courts, Delhi in SC No. 242/2018 arising out of FIR No.
1378/2015 (‘FIR’).
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KAMALDEEP
KAUR CRL.A. 691/2023 Page 1 of 20
Signing Date:30.06.2025
18:16:56
2. By the impugned judgment, the learned ASJ convicted the
appellant of the offence under Section 10 of the Protection of Children
from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (‘POCSO Act‘) and Section 18 read
with Section 6 of the POCSO Act and Section 506 of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860 (‘IPC‘). By the impugned order on sentence, the learned
ASJ sentenced the appellant to undergo imprisonment for a period of
10 years alongwith payment of fine for a sum of ₹10,000/- and in
default thereof to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one
year for the offence under Section 6 read with Section 18 of the
POCSO Act. For the offence under Section 10 of the POCSO Act, the
learned ASJ sentenced the appellant to undergo imprisonment for a
period of 05 years alongwith payment of fine for a sum of ₹1,000/-
and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for
six months. Further, the appellant was sentenced to undergo
imprisonment for a period of six months along with payment of fine
for a sum of ₹500 and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a
period of 15 days for the offence under Section 506 of the IPC. All the
sentences were directed to run concurrently.
3. Succinctly stated, the FIR was registered on a complaint given
by the mother of the prosecutrix. It is alleged that on 17.10.2014, the
mother of the prosecutrix learnt that the appellant had sexually
assaulted her daughter for the past three months. The appellant is
stated to be the fuffa of the prosecutrix. It is alleged that on 03.09.2015
when the prosecutrix was playing in the park situated near her house,
the appellant touched her hips. It is further alleged that when the
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KAMALDEEP
KAUR CRL.A. 691/2023 Page 2 of 20
Signing Date:30.06.2025
18:16:56
appellant had come to the house of the prosecutrix, he removed the
clothes of the prosecutrix and touched his genitals to the prosecutrix’s
private parts.
4. Consequently, FIR No. 1378/2015 dated 22.09.2015 was
registered at Police Station Tilak Nagar for offences under Sections
376/506 of the IPC and Section 5/6 of the POCSO Act.
5. The statement of the complainant under Section 164 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (‘CrPC‘) was recorded on
23.09.2015. Subsequently, upon the conclusion of investigation, the
chargesheet was filed.
6. The learned Trial Court vide order dated 04.03.2016 proceeded
to frame charges against the appellant for the offences under Section
10 and Section 6 read with Section 18 of the POCSO Act and Section
511/376/506 of the IPC.
7. In order to establish its case, the prosecution examined 11
witnesses including PW-1 (mother of the prosecutrix), PW-3 (father of
the prosecutrix), PW-4 (grandfather of the prosecutrix), PW-5 (guard),
PW-8 (uncle of the prosecutrix) and PW-9 (aunt of the prosecutrix).
8. The appellant denied the allegations levelled against him in his
statement under Section 313 of the CrPC. He asserted that he had been
falsely implicated in the case due to ulterior motives. The appellant
claimed that the present case is motivated and has been filed on the
instructions of his ex-wife/bua of the prosecutrix who wanted to gain a
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KAMALDEEP
KAUR CRL.A. 691/2023 Page 3 of 20
Signing Date:30.06.2025
18:16:56
share in his father’s property. He further claimed that the complaint
had only been filed as a counterblast to the complaint filed by the
appellant’s father against the appellant’s ex-wife/bua of the
prosecutrix.
9. The learned ASJ, by the impugned judgment, convicted the
appellant of the offences under Section 10 of the POCSO Actand
Section 18 read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act and Section 506 of
the IPC. It was noted that on being specifically asked, the prosecutrix
stated that the appellant had tried to touch his penis to the victim’s
genitals. The prosecutrix deposed that the appellant had assaulted her
on three occasions: once in her house, once in the appellant’s house
and once in the park. She further stated that the appellant had removed
her undergarments when he tried to touch his genitals to her private
parts. She further stated that since it was dark, she could not see if the
appellant had removed his clothes or not. It was noted that the
prosecutrix categorically deposed that she had not stated anything out
of fear.
10. The learned ASJ noted that the mother of the prosecutrix/PW-1
corroborated the version of the prosecution and categorically stated
that she found her daughter in some fear and upon questioning her
daughter disclosed the acts committed by the appellant. It was noted
that since the deposition of the mother of the prosecutrix/PW-1 threw
light on the conduct of the prosecutrix, the same was relevant. It was
noted that the prosecutrix had made specific allegations against the
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KAMALDEEP
KAUR CRL.A. 691/2023 Page 4 of 20
Signing Date:30.06.2025
18:16:56
appellant. It was further noted that the mother of the victim/PW-1 in
her testimony chronologically narrated the events and that the same
inspired confidence. It was noted that while the appellant, in his
defence, had pointed towards the contradictions in the statements of
the witnesses, and that the present case was motivated as his wife/bua
of the prosecutrix had separated from the appellant barely a month
ago, the same was discarded in light of the categorical allegations
made by the prosecutrix against the appellant. The learned ASJ noted
that the victim had made specific allegations against the appellant
which was consistent with her statement under Section 164 of the
CrPC. Consequently, the learned ASJ convicted the appellant of the
offences under Section 10 of the POCSO Act and Section 18 read with
Section 6 of the POCSO Act and Section 506 of the IPC.
11. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the learned
ASJ erred in convicting the appellant for the offences under Section
10 of the POCSO Act and Section 18 read with Section 6 of the
POCSO Act and Section 506 of the IPC. He submitted that the
conviction of the appellant was sustained based on surmises and
conjectures and ought to be set aside. He submitted that the learned
ASJ failed to take into consideration the discrepancies in the statement
of the prosecutrix. He submitted that the prosecutrix in her statement
under Section 164 of the CrPC stated that the appellant had touched
his genitals to the victim’s private parts. He submitted that on the
contrary, during the course of further examination, the prosecutrix
herself stated that since it was dark, she could not tell whether the
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KAMALDEEP
KAUR CRL.A. 691/2023 Page 5 of 20
Signing Date:30.06.2025
18:16:56
appellant had removed his clothes or not. He submitted that same casts
serious aspersions in the case of the prosecution.
12. He submitted that the testimony of the mother of the
victim/PW-1 runs inter se contradictory to that of the prosecutrix. He
submitted that PW-1, in her cross-examination stated that the
prosecutrix used to sleep with her bua (wife of the appellant) and the
appellant whenever they came to her house or whenever the
prosecutrix went to their house. Contrarily, the prosecutrix stated that
on the night of the incident, she was sleeping in the same room as the
appellant and stated that “on that night, I and my four sisters were also
sleeping with us”.
13. He submitted that while considering the testimony of PW-
1/mother of the prosecutrix, the learned ASJ failed to consider that
PW-1 herself deposed that no allegation was ever made by the
prosecutrix’s bua (wife of the appellant) of any misconduct by the
appellant. He submitted that the present dispute is motivated and
arises out of the marital dispute between the appellant and his wife/the
bua of the prosecutrix who barely separated a month before the
present complaint was lodged. He submitted that on 14.09.2015, some
marital dispute in relation to share in the property of appellant’s father
arose between the appellant and his wife after which the appellant’s
wife left the company of the appellant and went to reside in the
prosecutrix’s house. He submitted that thereafter the appellant’s wife
lodged a complaint against the appellant and his family members on
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KAMALDEEP
KAUR CRL.A. 691/2023 Page 6 of 20
Signing Date:30.06.2025
18:16:56
14.09.2015. He submitted that on that occasion the mother/PW-1 as
well as the father/PW-3 of the prosecutrix were present at the Police
Station, however, no complaint against the appellant in relation to
commission of any sexual assault was made by the parents of the
prosecutrix.
14. He submitted that thereafter on the following day, the father of
the appellant lodged a complaint against the appellant’s wife regarding
her conduct and behavior in relation to demand of a share in the
appellant’s father’s property. He submitted that it was only a week
after the father of the appellant lodged a complaint against the
appellant’s wife that the subject complaint in relation to the alleged
commission of sexual assault by the appellant was filed. He submitted
that the delay in lodging the FIR aptly demonstrates that the complaint
was driven by the intent to seek revenge.
15. He submitted that the allegations against the appellant in any
event are improbable in nature. He submitted that even if the
contradictions in the versions of PW-1/mother of the prosecutrix and
PW-2/prosecutrix in regard to who was sleeping with the prosecutrix
on the night when the alleged incident occurred was to be ignored and
the testimony of the prosecutrixwas to be given precedence, even then
as per the prosecutrix’s own case, on the night when the alleged
incident had occurred, the prosecutrix along with her four sisters were
sleeping in the same room. He submitted that it is the victim’s own
case that her four sisters were sleeping on one side of the appellant
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KAMALDEEP
KAUR CRL.A. 691/2023 Page 7 of 20
Signing Date:30.06.2025
18:16:56
and she herself was sleeping on the other side of the appellant. He
submitted that given the alleged presence of four other children
besides the prosecutrix and the appellant in the same room, it is highly
improbable for the appellant to have committed the alleged incident
and also threatened the prosecutrix of dire consequences without the
same being noticed by any other person.
16. He submitted that it is the prosecutrix’s case that the appellant
had touched her “back” while she was playing in the park. He
submitted that the same has not been corroborated by any other
independent witness. He submitted that the guard room was situated
close to the park, and the guard/PW-5 himself deposed that if any such
incident would have occurred, the same would have been informed to
RWA. He consequently submitted that considering the improbability
of the allegations, the appellant be acquitted and the impugned
judgement and impugned order on sentence be set aside.
17. Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the
State and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the prosecutrix
submitted that the impugned judgment is reasoned and warrants no
interference. They submitted that the prosecutrix consistently
maintained that the appellant had touched his genitals to the victim’s
private parts. They submitted that the sole testimony of the prosecutrix
alone is sufficient to sustain a conviction without the need of further
corroboration. They further submitted that in view of the cogent and
consistent testimony of the prosecutrix, the prosecution has been able
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KAMALDEEP
KAUR CRL.A. 691/2023 Page 8 of 20
Signing Date:30.06.2025
18:16:56
to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.
Analysis
18. 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) of
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 HighSignature Not Verified
Signed By:KAMALDEEP
KAUR CRL.A. 691/2023 Page 9 of 20
Signing Date:30.06.2025
18:16:56
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)
19. 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
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.
20. A thorough examination of the material on record indicates that
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KAMALDEEP
KAUR CRL.A. 691/2023 Page 10 of 20
Signing Date:30.06.2025
18:16:56
the case of the prosecution is fraught with blemishes and fails to
establish the case against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt.
Further, a perusal of the impugned judgment reveals that several
crucial aspects having direct bearing on the adjudication of the case
were either insufficiently addressed or dealt with in a cursory manner.
21. In the present case, the conviction of the appellant was
sustained essentially on the basis of the allegations made by the
prosecutrix against the appellant. It is well established that an accused
can be convicted solely on the basis of the evidence of the victim
without the need of any further corroboration so long as the same
inspires confidence. However, in instances where the evidence of the
victim is fraught with gaps or flaws or fails to provide a sufficient
account of the incident, the conviction of the accused cannot be
sustained [Ref: Nirmal Premkumar v. State : 2024 SCC OnLine SC
260].
22. One of the primary grounds taken by the appellant to challenge
the impugned judgment is the delay in lodging the FIR. It has been
asserted that the present case finds its genesis in the matrimonial
dispute that arose between the appellant and his wife and has been
filed only as a counterblast to the case lodged by the appellant’s father
against his wife. It has been argued that the conviction of the appellant
has been sustained only by considering the allegations on its face
value. It has been argued that the complaint was filed barely within
one month of the separation of the appellant and his wife, and that the
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KAMALDEEP
KAUR CRL.A. 691/2023 Page 11 of 20
Signing Date:30.06.2025
18:16:56
same casts doubt on the veracity of the case of the prosecution.
23. Before delving into an analysis of the contention raised by the
appellant, it is pertinent to note that the Hon’ble Apex Court while
considering the impact of delay in lodging an FIR in sexual offences
and its consequential probability of embellishment or chance of false
implication in the case of Tulshidas Kanolkar v. State of Goa: (2003)
8 SCC 590 held as under:
“5. We shall first deal with the question of delay. The unusual
circumstances satisfactorily explained the delay in lodging of the
first information report. In any event, delay per se is not a
mitigating circumstance for the accused when accusations of rape
are involved. Delay in lodging the first information report cannot
be used as a ritualistic formula for discarding the prosecution case
and doubting its authenticity. It only puts the court on guard to
search for and consider if any explanation has been offered for the
delay. Once it is offered, the court is to only see whether it is
satisfactory or not. In case if the prosecution fails to satisfactorily
explain the delay and there is possibility of embellishment or
exaggeration in the prosecution version on account of such delay,
it is a relevant factor. On the other hand, satisfactory explanation
of the delay is weighty enough to reject the plea of false implication
or vulnerability of the prosecution case….”
24. Upon a rigorous assessment of the material on record, it is
apparent that the prosecution has failed to offer any plausible
explanation for the delay in lodging the FIR. The inception of this case
stemmed from a complaint given by the mother of the
prosecutrix/PW-1 thereby alleging that her daughter PW-2/prosecutrix
was repeatedly subjected to sexual assault by the appellant. It is
pertinent to note that in her complaint as well as during the course of
the trial, PW-1 maintained that the entire account of the incident was
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KAMALDEEP
KAUR CRL.A. 691/2023 Page 12 of 20
Signing Date:30.06.2025
18:16:56
narrated to her by her daughter way back on 17.10.2014. However, the
FIR in the present case was registered way later on 22.09.2015. The
only explanation offered by PW-1 for not lodging a complaint was
that on that occasion, considering the future of the children and the
matrimonial life of the appellant and his wife, no complaint was made.
25. Undisputedly, it is not uncommon for the adult members of the
family including the parents of the victim to choose to not report such
crimes for the fear of social stigma, isolation, discrimination and with
a view to safeguard the interests of the child and protect the honour of
the family [Ref: Shankar Kisanrao Khade v. State of Maharashtra :
(2013) 5 SCC 546]. This Court is also aware that such fears are
further exacerbated in circumstances where the alleged offender is a
member of the family. The initial reluctance on the part of the family
in reporting such crimes is therefore not per se reflective of the falsity
of the allegations but reflects broader socio-psychological inhibitions
that families face when reporting such crimes. At the same time, it is
also pertinent to note that Courts have come across instances where
the provisions of the POCSO Act have been used as a means to settle
scores amongst family members when disputes between the parties, be
it marital or otherwise, are already simmering [Ref: Veerpal v. State :
2024 SCC OnLine Del 2686]. In such scenarios, the possibility of
false implication cannot entirely be ruled out. For this reason, when
dealing with cases which involve allegations of sexual assault against
family members where intra-family discords are already festering,
Courts ought to proceed with caution while examining the merits ofSignature Not Verified
Signed By:KAMALDEEP
KAUR CRL.A. 691/2023 Page 13 of 20
Signing Date:30.06.2025
18:16:56
the allegations and the credibility of the case of the prosecution.
26. In that backdrop, it is pertinent to note that as per the testimony
of PW-1, while she had knowledge of the commission of the alleged
offence way back on 17.10.2014, no complaint was lodged on that
occasion considering the marital life of the appellant and the bua of
the prosecutrix and the future of the children. Thereafter, it is the case
of the prosecution that subsequently much later on 03.09.2015 when
the prosecutrix was playing in the park situated near her house, the
appellant touched her “back”. Strangely, on this occasion as well, no
complaint was made against the appellant. Further, no explanation has
been offered by the prosecution as to why on that occasion as well, no
complaint was made. Contrarily, the learned counsel for the appellant
has urged that the present complaint is motivated as the same has been
filed barely within a period of one month of the separation of the
appellant and his wife owing to a marital dispute. While this Court
does not mean to suggest that a delay in lodging the complaint is per
se fatal to the case of the prosecution, yet where the prosecution fails
to provide a reasonable explanation for the delay, the same has the
impact of casting serious aspersions on the veracity of the case of the
prosecution. Consequently, considering the dearth of any plausible
explanation to justify the delay in lodging the complaint, and the rival
submissions of both the parties, this Court now deems it apposite to
examine and decipher the events that transpired prior to the
registration of the FIR.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KAMALDEEP
KAUR CRL.A. 691/2023 Page 14 of 20
Signing Date:30.06.2025
18:16:56
27. As noted above, as per the case of the prosecution, while the
commission of the alleged acts by the appellant were known to the
mother/PW-1 and father/PW-3 of the prosecutrix, no complaint was
made against the appellant regarding the commission of any such
alleged act. A perusal of the record shows that on account of a dispute
between the appellant and his wife (bua of the victim), the bua of the
prosecutrix left the house of the appellant and started residing with the
prosecutrix since 14.09.2015. The record further indicates that a
complaint was filed by the prosecutrix’s bua against the appellant and
his family members on 14.09.2015. As per the testimony of the
mother/PW-1 and the father/PW-3 of the prosecutrix, at the time when
the complaint was being given by the prosecutrix’s bua, they were
present with her at the Police Station. What appears peculiar to this
Court is that on that occasion as well, when the complaint was being
lodged against the appellant and his family members, even on that
occasion, no whisper of any alleged sexual assault committed by the
appellant was made.
28. Even if this Court were to accept the narrative of the
prosecution at face value that the complaint was not made initially
considering the marital life of the appellant and his wife, however
considering the fact that on such occasion the prosecutrix’s bua had
left the company of the appellant, it is dubious why no allegation or
complaint was made against the appellant regarding the alleged
commission of sexual assault. The complaint was thereafter only made
on 22.09.2015, that is, a week after the appellant’s wife had left his
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KAMALDEEP
KAUR CRL.A. 691/2023 Page 15 of 20
Signing Date:30.06.2025
18:16:56
company and had lodged a complaint against the appellant and his
family members. At no point in time was it ever the case of the
prosecution that the alleged acts committed by the appellant were
unknown to the family members of the prosecutrix. Yet, the
unexplained delay in lodging the complaint coupled with the fact that
no complaint against the appellant was made even on 14.09.2015, that
is, at the time when a complaint was being filed against the appellant
and his family members by the appellant’s wife despite the fact that
the parents of the prosecutrix were present in the Police Station and
had the knowledge of the alleged commission of the offence by the
appellant, in the opinion of this Court, casts serious doubts on the
veracity of the case of the prosecution.
29. A further complication arises from the inconsistency in the
prosecution’s narrative. In her initial statement under Section 164 of
the CrPC, the prosecutrix alleged that the appellant had removed her
clothes and touched his genitals to her private parts. However, during
the course of her examination, she stated since it was dark, she could
not tell whether the appellant had removed his clothes or not.
30. At this stage, this Court also deems to look into the
improbability of the allegations made against the appellant. As per the
testimony of the prosecutrix herself, the incident occurred in her room
and she stated that “On that night, I and my four sisters were also
sleeping with us.” She further voluntarily stated that “My four sisters
were sleeping on one side of accused and I was sleeping on other side
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KAMALDEEP
KAUR CRL.A. 691/2023 Page 16 of 20
Signing Date:30.06.2025
18:16:56
of accused.” She further stated that the appellant had threatened her
from disclosing about the events to anyone. From a perusal of the
same, in the opinion of this Court, it is highly improbable for the
appellant to have committed the alleged incident and also threatened
the prosecutrix of dire consequences without the same being noticed
by any other person present in the same room.
31. Another aspect that brings the case of the prosecution under a
shadow is that as per the testimony of PW-1/mother of the prosecutrix,
the prosecutrix used to sleep with her bua (wife of the appellant) and
the appellant whenever they came to her house or whenever the
prosecutrix went to their house. Contrarily, the prosecutrix stated that
on the night of the incident, she was sleeping in the same room as the
appellant and stated that “on that night, I and my four sisters were also
sleeping with us”. Even if this Court were to give credence and
primacy to the version of the victim and accept the allegations against
the appellant at face value, it is peculiar why the prosecution failed to
examine the children sleeping in the room along with the prosecutrix
and appellant on the night when the alleged incident was committed.
Further, even the wife of the appellant was never cited as a witness to
corroborate the case of the prosecution. The same, in the opinion of
this Court, impinges on the credibility of the case of the prosecution.
32. 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,
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KAMALDEEP
KAUR CRL.A. 691/2023 Page 17 of 20
Signing Date:30.06.2025
18:16:56
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.
33. It is also relevant to note that the appellant has been convicted
for the offences under Section 10 of the POCSO Act and Section 18
read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act and Section 506 of the IPC.
The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the allegations
even otherwise, at the highest, only relate to the offence under Section
7 of the POCSO Act which lays down the provision for sexual assault
and not Sections 4/6 which deal with penetrative/aggravated
penetrative sexual assault. Before dealing with the said contention,
this Court deems it apposite to clarify that considering the
discrepancies and infirmities in the prosecution’s case, this Court is of
the opinion that the prosecution has failed to establish its case against
the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. Without prejudice to the said
finding, it is pertinent to note that the allegations against the appellant
pertain to the appellant touching his genitals to the prosecutrix’s
private parts. While the prosecution has failed to establish its case
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KAMALDEEP
KAUR CRL.A. 691/2023 Page 18 of 20
Signing Date:30.06.2025
18:16:56
against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt, even if the allegations
against the appellant were to be taken at the highest, the alleged act of
merely touching the appellant’s genitals to the prosecutrix’s private
part could not have amounted to penetrative/aggravated penetrative
sexual assault within the meaning of Section 4/6 of the POCSO Act.
For the offence of penetrative sexual assault to have been attracted, it
is imperative for the accused to have penetrated his penis, inserted any
object or a part of his body, manipulated any part of the body of the
child so as to cause penetration or applied his mouth to the penis,
vagina, anus or urethra of the child. However, as noted above the
allegations against the appellant pertain to the appellant touching his
genitals to the victim’s private part which does not fall within the
meaning of penetrative sexual assault under Section 4 of the POCSO
Act.
Conclusion
34. 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.
35. It is a settled principle that when two views are possible– one
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.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KAMALDEEP
KAUR CRL.A. 691/2023 Page 19 of 20
Signing Date:30.06.2025
18:16:56
36. 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.
37. Accordingly, the impugned judgment and impugned order on
sentence are set aside.
38. 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.
39. The appeal is allowed anddisposed of in the aforesaid terms.
Pending application also stands disposed of.
40. A copy of this order be sent to the concerned Jail
Superintendent for necessary compliance.
AMIT MAHAJAN, J
JUNE 26,2025
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KAMALDEEP
KAUR CRL.A. 691/2023 Page 20 of 20
Signing Date:30.06.2025
18:16:56