NEW DELHI: The Delhi High Court has overturned the conviction of a man serving life imprisonment for alleged rape and sexual assault of a 14-year-old girl under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act and the IPC.
A bench comprising Justices Prathiba M Singh and Amit Sharma observed that the survivor’s statement lacked clarity and sufficient evidence to substantiate claims of penetrative sexual assault.
The bench highlighted that while the survivor used terms like “physical relations,” these phrases were too vague to establish the occurrence of penetrative sexual assault under Section 3 of the POCSO Act or Section 376 of the IPC.
“Though consent would not matter if the girl is a minor under the POCSO Act, the phrase ‘physical relations’ alone cannot automatically imply sexual intercourse, let alone sexual assault,” the high court noted.
The bench further emphasised that the survivor’s statement did not specifically allege sexual assault, and no supporting evidence was presented. “The leap from terms like physical relations or ‘samband’ to penetrative sexual assault must be proven on record through credible evidence and cannot simply be inferred,” the bench remarked.
The high court was hearing an appeal filed by the accused challenging his conviction by the trial court in December 2023. The case originated from a complaint filed by the minor’s mother in 2017 , alleging that her daughter had been lured and kidnapped by an unknown individual.
During the investigation, the minor mentioned a “physical relationship” with the accused, leading to his conviction and life sentence by the trial court.
However, the high court pointed out significant discrepancies in the trial court’s findings. In her cross-examination, the survivor explicitly stated that the accused did not physically assault or harm her. Additionally, her medical examination revealed no signs of injury or assault.
The high court criticised the trial court for convicting the accused without a clear rationale. “The trial court did not provide any reasoning for concluding that sexual assault had occurred. Simply being a minor cannot automatically lead to a finding of penetrative sexual assault,” the bench stated. The lack of evidence and the ambiguous nature of the survivor’s testimony led the high court to acquit the accused.