Full Text
IN THE HIGH COURTOF DELHIAT NEW DELHI
%
JUDGMENT
+ CRL.A. 641/2025 & CRL.M.(BAIL) 1036/2025
PRAVEEN .....Appellant
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Appellant : Mr. Sudarshan Rajan, Mr. Hitain Bajaj, Mr. Sambhav Sharma & Ms. Kashish, Advs.
For the Respondent : Mr. Ritesh Kumar Bahri, APP for the State along with Mr. Lalit Luthra & Mr. Vinesh
Kumar, Advs. WSI Fukeria, PS DCRS, WSI
Birvati Yadav, PS DCRS.
Ms. Surbhi Arora, Mr. Subham Jain, Mr. Shravan Pandey & Mr. Siddharth Arora, Advs. for prosecutrix.
1. The present appeal is filed against the judgment dated 30.01.2025 (hereafter ‘impugned judgment’) and the order on sentence dated 07.02.2025 (hereafter ‘impugned order on sentence’) passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Central, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in SC No. 500/2023 arising out of FIR No. 21/2023 registered at Police Station Delhi Cantt Railway Station.
2. By the impugned judgment, the learned ASJ found the appellant guilty of the offences under Sections 376(3) 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 20 years and to pay a fine of ₹5,000/and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 02 months.
3. Succinctly stated, on 17.07.2023, on the basis of the complaint of the victim, a Zero FIR being FIR No. 174/2023 was registered on 17.07.2023 under Sections 376 of the IPC and Section 4 of the POCSO Act. It is alleged in the complaint that the victim was travelling to Bengal and she was not accompanied by any member of her family. It is alleged that the victim met the appellant on train and when the train was leaving Delhi Cantt Railway Station, the appellant took the victim to the bathroom and thereafter committed ‘galat kaam’ with her. It is alleged that the ‘galat kaam’ only occurred once. It is further alleged that the victim and the appellant had alighted the train and when they entered the Railway Station to board the train, they were apprehended by RPF staff. Pursuant to the same, the victim was produced by one RPF officer at Police Station Old Delhi Railway Station, where her statement was recorded, which ultimately led to registration of the Zero FIR. The victim was also medically examined where she refused to undergo any internal examination. The incident is alleged to have taken place on 16.07.2023 at around 9:30 PM.
4. Since the incident pertained to PS Delhi Cantt Railway Station, the case file was transferred to PS Delhi Cantt Railway Station whereafter FIR No. 21/2023 was registered on 18.07.2023 for offences under Sections 376 of the IPC and Section 4 of the POCSO Act.
5. In her statement under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (‘CrPC’) recorded on 19.07.2023, the victim stated that she was 11 years old and stated that she was travelling to Bengal. The victim stated that she reached Delhi Cantt Railway Station by bus whereafter she boarded the train and reached Old Delhi Railway Station. She stated that she met the appellant on train and stated that she did not know the appellant. Thereafter, she stated that the appellant held her hand and asked her to accompany him to the train’s lavatory. She stated that thereafter in the lavatory, the appellant removed the victim’s pajami and inserted his private part in the victim’s genitalia. She stated that she did not inform about the alleged incident to anyone on train. She further stated that when the appellant and herself alighted the train in Old Delhi Railway Station, the appellant was caught by police whereafter she informed the Police that the appellant had committed ‘galat kaam’ with her. She further stated that the incident took place at around 9:30 PM.
6. The statement of the victim under Section 164 of the CrPC was recorded on 19.07.2023 wherein the victim stated that she was travelling from Gurgaon to Delhi by train. She stated that thereafter the she met the appellant on train who took her to the lavatory. She stated that thereafter the appellant removed her lower garments and also told her that he would marry her. She further stated that thereafter the appellant inserted his private part in the victim’s genitalia. She stated that thereafter she herself wore her clothes. She stated that thereafter they alighted the train and stated that “checking karne waale ne uss ladke ko pakad liya. Maine checking karne waale ko bataya mere saath kya hua hai.’ Subsequently, upon the conclusion of the investigation, the chargesheet was filed.
7. The learned ASJ vide order dated 23.09.2023 proceeded to frame charges against the appellant for the offences under Sections 376(3) of the IPC and Section 5(m) of the POCSO Act.
8. The prosecution cited 13 witnesses in support of its case including PW-1 (victim), PW-2 (father of the victim), PW-3 (Principal of the school), PW-11 (FSL expert) and other witnesses who deposed about the manner of investigation.
9. In his statement under Section 313 of the CrPC, the appellant denied the allegations levelled against him. The appellant acceded to the fact that he had met the victim on train. He stated that the victim told him that she was going to Bengal and her parents were not there. The appellant asserted that the victim asked for money and for mobile phone from the appellant. The appellant further asseverated that he only talked with the victim and that they kissed each other. He emphatically asserted that he did not do anything else with the victim. He further asserted that he had been falsely implicated in the case.
10. The learned ASJ, by the impugned judgment, convicted the appellant for the offences under Sections 376(3) of the IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act. It was noted that the victim was around 11 years 9 months old on the date of the commission of the alleged offence that is on 16.07.2023. It was noted that from a perusal of the testimony of the victim, it became apparent that the appellant committed penetrative sexual assault upon her. The learned ASJ took into account the fact that upon a leading question on the aspect of penetration, the victim clearly deposed that the appellant slightly penetrated his penis into the victim’s genitalia.
11. The learned ASJ noted that the victim proved her complaint given to the Police (PW-1/A) and her statement recorded under Section 164 of the CrPC. It was noted that the victim also correctly identified the appellant during her deposition as the one she met on the train. It was noted that the creditworthiness of the victim could not be impeached even during cross-examination.
12. It was noted that while no semen was detected on the pajami of the victim, the same was immaterial in the facts of the present case. It was noted that the negative FSL result was of no avail considering that as per the testimony of the victim, the case did not pertain to ejaculation on the victim’s clothes or her private part. It was noted that the victim testified that the appellant slightly inserted his penis in her private part. Consequently, considering that the victim remained consistent in her testimony and no material contradiction could be brought forth, and the appellant’s failure to dislodge the presumptions under Section 29 and 30 of the POCSO Act, the learned ASJ convicted the appellant for the offences under Sections 376(3) of the IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act.
13. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the learned ASJ erred in convicting the appellant for the offences under Sections 376 of the IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act. He submitted that leading question was put to the victim in the examination in chief by the learned Public Prosecutor which is impermissible and submitted that any answer elicited upon any such question would be inadmissible in evidence in terms of Section 142 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. He submitted that the victim in her initial complaint had merely stated that the appellant committed ‘galat kaam’ with her and the same does not necessarily connote penetration.
14. He submitted that the fact that no insertion took place is further corroborated by the DNA results which showed that no semen or other DNA was generated from the clothes of the victim. He submitted that the victim refused her internal examination for which reason no evidence could be led to show that there was any DNA in the internal parts of the victim. He submitted that the same weighs in favour of the accused and the benefit of the same ought not to be denied to the appellant.
15. On 22.07.2025, the victim appeared before this Court and requested that an advocate be provided to address arguments on her behalf. Consequently, this Court by order dated 22.07.2025 requested Ms. Surbhi Arora who was present in Court to represent the victim in the present case.
16. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and the learned counsel for the prosecutrix submitted that the impugned judgment is well reasoned and warrants no interference by this Court. They submitted that the victim in her statements under Section 161 and 164 of the CrPC had categorically asserted that the appellant inserted his penis in her genitalia.
17. They submitted that since that the identity of the appellant is not in dispute, his culpability stood established. They submitted that the culpability of the appellant can further be deciphered from his statement under Section 313 of the CrPC wherein the appellant himself categorically admitted that he had kissed the victim. Analysis
18. Before resorting to deal with the contention of the parties as well as analysing the evidence presented, it is pertinent to take note of the scope of Appellate Jurisdiction that is vested in this Court. While dealing with an appeal against judgment on conviction and sentence, 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 under:
19. Before embarking on the journey of looking into the merits of the present case, it is pertinent to firstly take note of the age of the victim on the date of the incident. The incident is alleged to have taken place on 16.07.2023. To establish the age of the victim, the prosecution examined PW[3] (principal of the school) who produced the original admission/withdrawal register as per which the date of birth of the victim reflected as 03.10.2011. The victim was admitted in that school on 03.01.2018 in Std 1. The age proof of the victim was also supported by a certificate issued by the school that manifested the date of birth of the victim as 03.10.2011. The contents of the date of birth certificate was also proved by PW-3. In his cross examination, PW[3] stated that the victim’s parents had provided her Aadhar Card as date of birth proof. Nothing could emerge from the cross examination of PW[3] to discredit his testimony or raise suspicions on the genuineness of age record of the victim. In view of the same, the victim was rightly determined to be below 12 years of age at the time of the incident.
20. This Court now turns its gaze towards the factual matrix of the present case. The case of the prosecution is essentially anchored in the testimony of the victim. The contours of law pertaining to the appreciation of the testimony of the child victim has been subject to various expositions in a catena of judgments. In that backdrop, a meaningful reference can be gained from the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of M.P. v. Balveer Singh: (2025) 8 SCC 545 whereby it was observed as under:
21. It is clear that the conviction of the accused can be sustained solely on the testimony of the victim without the need for any further corroboration if the same is reliable and consistent (Ref. Deepak Kumar Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh: 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1610).
22. The present case commenced on 17.07.2023 on the basis of a complaint given by the victim which led to the registration of a Zero FIR when the victim was produced at the Old Delhi Railway Station. In the complaint, the victim alleged that the appellant committed ‘galat kaam’ with her. Thereafter, the victim was medically examined on 17.07.2023 at around 3:25 AM and she refused to undergo any internal medical examination. The sexual assault history column recorded the incident in the following words: “Sexual assault by unknown person; male approx 20 yrs old; at New Delhi railway station, yesterday night (16.07.2023). Victim says she ran away from her home in Gurgaon and came to Delhi. Then the unknown person approached her and told her he would give food, he took her inside a train and sexually assaulted her. She says he took off his clothes and also took off her clothes and proceeded to sexual assault her (Victim not giving history properly) Victim not giving consent for UPT Examination.”
23. Subsequently, in her statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164 of the CrPC on 19.07.2023, the victim maintained that she met the appellant on train for the first time and that the appellant took her to the washroom, removed her clothes and thereafter inserted his penis into the victim’s genitalia. In her testimony before the Court, the victim stated that she had left her home and had boarded the train on Gurgaon Railway Station. She deposed that the train was going to Purani Delhi Railway Station and that she met one person in the train. She stated that the said person asked her to sit on his seat and thereafter told her that he would marry her. She deposed that the said person also committed ‘galat kaam’ with her on the train.
24. Upon being asked where ‘galat kaam’ was committed and the nature of ‘galat kaam’, the victim deposed that the act was done in the train’s bathroom and that the appellant removed his clothes and that of the victim’s and thereafter touched his private part to the victim’s private part. On a leading question thereafter put by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State to the victim in relation to whether the allegation pertained to insertion, the victim, in addition to answering in the affirmative, stated that the appellant had slightly inserted his private part in the victim’s private part.
25. Much emphasis has been laid by the learned counsel for the appellant on the fact that a leading question and any answer solicited as a consequence of the leading question is impermissible in evidence in terms of Section 142 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. In that regard, it is pertinent to note Section 142 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 itself carves out an exception and lays down that leading questions may be allowed with the permission of the Court which in the present case was duly sought. Secondly, while ordinarily leading questions are impermissible, such questions that are in the nature of clarification are not proscribed.
26. Section 142 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 reads as under:
27. In the present case, a holistic appraisal of the material on record would reveal that in both her statements recorded under Section 161 and 164 of the CrPC, the victim maintained that she met the appellant on train for the first time and that the appellant took her to the washroom, removed her clothes and thereafter inserted his penis into the victim’s genitalia. In a case like the present one where the victim gave a particular account in her statement under Section 161 of the CrPC, adhered to the same in her statement recorded before the Magistrate under Section 164 of the CrPC, and deposed in consonance with the same during her testimony before the Court, then the continuity of the victim’s narrative does not stand broken merely because a leading question was permitted by the Court for clarification. Eliciting a reaffirmation of an already pressed fact cannot dilute the evidentiary value of the victim’s testimony. In fact, a further scrutiny of the victim’s evidence would show that the victim even affirmed her statement recorded under Section 164 of the CrPC. The creditworthiness of the victim’s testimony could also not be impeached in her cross-examination. A clarificatory leading question thus in the opinion of this Court does not erode the consistent account maintained by the victim.
28. Insofar as the argument pertaining to the absence of any DNA or refusal of internal medical examination by the victim and the same being indicative of the fact that no insertion took place is concerned, it is relevant to note that the present case is not one of ejaculation. As per the version of the victim, the appellant removed his clothes and the victim’s clothes and thereafter proceeded to slightly insert his private part into the victim’s genitalia. Thus, solely because no DNA could be generated from the clothes of the victim does not suffice to conclude that the appellant has been falsely implicated. Further, mere refusal by the victim to undergo internal medical examination is also not a circumstance that alone can result to note that the appellant was sought to be falsely implicated.
29. Needless to iterate, judicial determination cannot take place in a factual vacuum. This Court ought to take note of the totality of circumstances while ascertaining the culpability of the appellant. In that regard, a particularly relevant factor is the age disparity between the appellant and the victim. As noted above, the victim was around 11 years 9 months and the appellant was 33 years old at the time when the incident took place. As per the stance taken in his statement under Section 313 of the CrPC, the appellant met the victim in the train for the first time. The appellant further admitted that he merely kissed the victim and did not do anything else. On such a conspectus of facts where the appellant himself concedes to some level of physical interaction with the victim who is barely 12 years old and who he met for the first time on a train and their relationship is marked by a remarkable age disparity, in the opinion of this Court, there appears no plausible reason for the victim to falsely implicate the appellant.
30. As noted above, the sole testimony of the victim can form the bedrock to sustain the conviction of the accused without the need for further corroboration if the same is credible and consistent. In the present case, the victim has categorically maintained that the appellant took her to the train’s lavatory, removed their clothes, and thereafter inserted private part into the victim’s genitalia. This Court thus finds itself in agreement with the view taken by the learned ASJ about the reliability and credibility of the testimony of the victim.
31. Once the said foundational facts stood established, the presumptions under Section 29 and 30 of the POCSO Act stood triggered. The onus was thus on the appellant to dislodge the presumptions which in the present case the appellant has miserably failed to do so. This Court thus does not find any infirmity in the conviction of the appellant and the same cannot be faulted with.
32. Insofar as the sentence is concerned, it is relevant to note that as per Section 6 of the POCSO Act, the punishment prescribed is rigorous imprisonment for a term not less than 20 years which may be extended to imprisonment for life and fine or death. The learned ASJ has sentenced the appellant to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 20 years which is the minimum sentence prescribed under Section 6 of the POCSO Act and to pay a fine of ₹5,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 02 months.
33. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the impugned judgment or the impugned order on sentence.
34. The present appeal is accordingly dismissed. Pending application also stands disposed of.
35. This Court appreciates the efforts put in by Ms. Surbhi Arora, Advocate, in assisting the Court.
36. The Delhi High Court Legal services Committee is directed to pay the fees of the learned counsel as per its scheduled rates and rules. AMIT MAHAJAN, J MARCH 16, 2026 “SK”