Safiya Malik

The High Court of Delhi Division Bench of Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Rajneesh Kumar Gupta have dismissed an appeal challenging the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court for offences under the Indian Penal Code and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act. The court has held that the conviction and sentence of the appellant do not warrant interference and directed that the appeal be dismissed. The court ordered that the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court be maintained, and a copy of the judgment be communicated to the concerned Trial Court, Jail Superintendent, and the appellant.

The matter before the High Court arose out of an appeal under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 filed by the appellant seeking to set aside the judgment dated 10 May 2024 and the order on sentence dated 10 July 2024 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (SC-POCSO)-02, North-East District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi. The trial court had convicted the appellant for offences punishable under Sections 363, 366, 376DA, 377, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, as well as under Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act.

Also Read: Supreme Court Upholds TS-Transco’s Fresh Recruitment Notification | Cancelling 2011–12 AP-Transco Selection Process Not Arbitrary, Candidates Had No Vested Right to Appointment

The trial court sentenced the appellant as follows: under Section 363 IPC, rigorous imprisonment for two years with a fine of Rs. 5,000, with six months’ imprisonment in default of fine; under Section 366 IPC, rigorous imprisonment for three years with a fine of Rs. 5,000, with six months’ imprisonment in default of fine; under Section 376DA IPC, rigorous imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs. 10,000, with twelve months’ imprisonment in default of fine; and under Section 377 IPC, rigorous imprisonment for ten years with a fine of Rs. 10,000, with six months’ imprisonment in default of fine. The sentences were ordered to run concurrently, and the benefit of Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was granted to the appellant.

The case of the prosecution, as reflected in the charge sheet, was that on 12 November 2018, at around 9:00 PM, the appellant kidnapped the prosecutrix, a minor girl aged 14 years, from the lawful guardianship of her parents with the intention to commit illicit intercourse. After kidnapping her, the appellant along with a co-accused, who subsequently absconded and later passed away, took her to a jungle and committed gang rape and carnal intercourse against the order of nature. Following her medical examination and counselling, the prosecutrix’s statement was recorded, and an FIR was registered under Sections 363, 376D, 377, and 34 of IPC, along with Section 6 of the POCSO Act.

During investigation, the prosecutrix’s statement was also recorded under Section 164 of CrPC. The appellant was arrested on 29 November 2018, and he was identified by the prosecutrix during the Test Identification Parade (TIP). The co-accused, however, remained unapprehended as he had absconded and later died in 2020. The prosecution examined 13 witnesses to support its case. The appellant denied the allegations under Section 313 CrPC, pleaded innocence, and claimed false implication.

The trial court, after examining the evidence, convicted the appellant. The findings recorded included satisfaction regarding the age of the prosecutrix based on school records and testimony of the principal, confirming she was 14 years old at the time of the incident. On the issue of identification, the trial court noted that the prosecutrix had consistently identified the appellant in the TIP, before the court, and described him as one of the persons who assaulted her.

The trial court also addressed the contention regarding the absence of DNA evidence linking the appellant to the crime. It recorded that while the forensic report did not establish a male DNA profile from the exhibits, this lapse was attributed to delays in sending the samples for examination, which could have led to degeneration. The trial court stated that scientific or DNA evidence is corroborative in nature and does not override consistent and reliable testimony of the victim. It concluded that the prosecutrix’s testimony remained consistent, credible, and corroborated by medical evidence and other witnesses.

The defence arguments in appeal included contentions that the trial court’s findings were based on surmises, that the prosecutrix’s age was not proved, and that her testimony contained inconsistencies. It was further argued that the absence of scientific evidence weakened the prosecution’s case. On these grounds, the appellant sought acquittal.

The prosecution and counsel for the prosecutrix argued in response that the trial court’s judgment was based on correct appreciation of evidence and that the prosecutrix’s testimony, corroborated by medical findings, was sufficient to uphold the conviction.

The High Court, after hearing both sides, observed that the prosecution had proved the age of the prosecutrix through school admission records and the testimony of the school principal. It recorded that the date of birth of the prosecutrix was 11 February 2004, thereby confirming that she was below 14 years of age at the time of the incident.

The court noted the detailed deposition of the prosecutrix, who described the circumstances in which she encountered the appellant and the co-accused, how she was taken to the jungle, and the sexual assault committed upon her. The court recorded her statement: “Praveen then tried to forcibly remove my clothes. He removed his own clothes. Then he forcibly removed my clothes. Praveen then tried to put his penis in my vagina, but I had a lot of pain and he could not succeed, then he inserted his penis in my rectum.” The prosecutrix further testified about her attempts to escape, subsequent assault by the co-accused, and how she eventually sought help the following morning.

The High Court observed that her testimony was consistent with her complaint to the police, her statement under Section 164 CrPC, and her statement in court. It noted: “The material facts, as deposed by the Prosecutrix, remained unchallenged and un-controverted in her cross-examination. No such material has come on record in the cross-examination of the Prosecutrix to prove that she had any prior enmity with the Appellant to falsely implicate him in the incident.” The court further stated that the minor discrepancies pointed out by the defence regarding why she left her sister’s house or what she was eating at the time did not discredit her overall testimony.

The medical evidence, as per the testimony of the doctor, corroborated the account of the prosecutrix by recording fresh hymen tear and anal dilation. The High Court noted the deposition of the doctor that “infection cannot cause red coloration on the private part of any person.” The court rejected the defence’s arguments that absence of semen or external injuries weakened the case, observing that injury is not a sine qua non for rape and that the testimony of the prosecutrix was credible.

On the issue of identification, the High Court stated that the prosecutrix had identified the appellant in the TIP and in court, and no evidence was presented to show she had been tutored or that the identification process was vitiated. It further observed that TIP evidence is corroborative, while identification in court is substantive.

Regarding the argument that the co-accused was not tried, the High Court referred to precedents and observed that one offender can be convicted for gang rape even if the other accused escapes apprehension.

The High Court also referred to precedents from the Supreme Court to reaffirm that the sole testimony of the prosecutrix, if consistent and credible, is sufficient for conviction. It recorded: “The testimony of a victim in cases of sexual offences is vital and unless there are compelling reasons which necessitate looking for corroboration of a statement, the courts should find no difficulty to act on the testimony of the victim of a sexual assault alone to convict the accused.”

Also Read: Madhya Pradesh High Court | Says Trial Courts Consistently Fail in Duties Despite Training | Acquits Accused in POCSO Appeal for Non-Consideration of Ossification Test

The court further noted: “In view of the analysis hereinabove, there is clear and unimpeaching evidence of the Prosecutrix which in terms of the settled legal position, is sufficient to hold the Appellant guilty.”

The High Court concluded that the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court did not warrant any interference. It recorded: “Thus, the conviction of the Appellant by the Trial Court does not warrant any interference by this Court. The conviction and the sentence of the Appellant are maintained.”

The court directed that the appeal be dismissed and ordered: “The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. All pending applications, if any, are also disposed of.” Further, it directed: “A copy of the judgment be communicated to the concerned Trial Court, Jail Superintendent and the Appellant.”

Advocates Representing the Parties:

For the Petitioner: Mr. Kanhaiya Singhal & Mr. Rahul Bhaskar, Advocates.

For the Respondent: Mr. Ritesh Kumar Bahri, APP with Ms. Divya Yadav & Mr. Lalit Luthra, Advocates. Mr. Zishaan Iskandari & Mr. Madhur Mittal, Advocates for Complainant. Insp. Harish Kumar, P.S. Karawal Nagar.

Case Title: Praveen @ Lallu v. State NCT of Delhi

Neutral Citation: 2025: DHC:7067-DB

Case Number: CRL.A. 826/2024 & CRL.M.(BAIL) 1481/2024

Bench: Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Rajneesh Kumar Gupta