Court Reliance on Sole Testimony of Child Victim, Rejects Defense of Tutoring and Physical Incapacity; Delay in FIR Lodging Reasonably Explained
In a significant judgment delivered on November 2, 2026, the Delhi High Court upheld the conviction and sentence of a father, Jai Prakash, for aggravated penetrative sexual assault on his then three-year-old daughter under Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012. The Court affirmed the trial court's decision which had sentenced the accused to rigorous imprisonment for twenty years along with a fine of Rs. 10,000.
The case originated from an incident in November 2021, when the child victim, aged about three years, allegedly disclosed that her father had inserted his finger into her private part. The mother, upon returning from work and finding the child crying, learned of the incident and later reported it. The FIR was registered on June 20, 2022, approximately seven months after the occurrence.
The defense challenged the conviction on multiple grounds including the delay in lodging the FIR, the accused's paralysis allegedly rendering him physically incapable of committing the act, and the claim that the child was tutored by her mother to falsely implicate the father due to her extramarital relationship. However, the Court found these defenses unconvincing.
Key points from the judgment include:
1. Competency and Reliability of Child's Testimony: The Court noted that despite the tender age of the child, the trial court had thoroughly assessed her ability to understand and answer questions rationally. The child's testimony remained consistent on material facts, and she identified the accused unequivocally as the perpetrator.
2. Allegation of Tutoring Rejected: The defense's assertion that the child was coached to fabricate the allegations was not substantiated. The child's admission that her mother had a relationship with another man, Suresh, contradicted the tutoring claim, as the mother would unlikely have the child implicate herself indirectly.
3. Medical Evidence and Delay in FIR: Though the medical examination was conducted seven months after the incident, the absence of visible injuries did not disprove the occurrence of digital penetration. The Court accepted that the delay in reporting was reasonably explained by the mother's fear of the accused and family circumstances, consistent with jurisprudence recognizing the complexities in reporting sexual offences.
4. Physical Incapacity Defense Overruled: While the accused had paralysis and was bedridden, medical opinion confirmed he was capable of using his upper limbs and committing the alleged act. The Court found no reasonable doubt arising from this defense.
5. Statutory Presumption under POCSO Act: The Court held that the foundational facts proved attracted the statutory presumption of guilt under Section 29 of the POCSO Act, which the accused failed to rebut.
The Court dismissed the appeal, emphasizing that the prosecution had discharged its burden beyond reasonable doubt. The judgment reinforces the principle that the sole testimony of a competent and reliable child victim can form the basis of conviction in sexual offence cases, even in absence of corroborative medical evidence.
The ruling also highlights judicial sensitivity to the challenges victims face in reporting sexual offences promptly and underscores the importance of a holistic evaluation of evidence rather than mechanical dismissal based on delay or minor inconsistencies.
Bottom Line:
POCSO Act - Conviction under Section 6 upheld - Sole testimony of a child victim of about three years, if found competent and reliable, can form basis of conviction - Delay of about seven months in lodging FIR in sexual assault by father held satisfactorily explained - Absence of medical injuries after several months and accused's paralysis not sufficient to discredit prosecution case.
Statutory provision(s): Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 Sections 2(d), 3(b), 5(m), 6, 29, 30; Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Sections 415(2), 528; Indian Penal Code Section 376; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Sections 164, 161, 313
J.P v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), (Delhi) : Law Finder Doc Id # 3009195
