Delhi HC Grants Acquittal in POCSO Case Over Absence of Clear Testimony on Penetration

The High Court of Delhi has acquitted a man convicted under the POCSO Act, emphasizing that vague terms like 'physical relations' without specific descriptions of penetration fail to establish the foundational facts required for conviction.

In a significant ruling, Justice Chandrasekharan Sudha overturned a trial court verdict, observing that the statutory presumption under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 does not apply automatically unless the prosecution first proves the core elements of the alleged offence through reliable evidence.

Vague Testimony and Lack of Medical Evidence Undermine Prosecution Case

The Court noted that the victim, in her statement under Section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 and during her testimony, utilized general expressions such as "physical relations" or "sharirik sambandh" without elaborating on the nature of the acts. This lack of specificity, coupled with the victim's refusal to undergo an internal medical examination, created a void in the evidence regarding whether actual penetration occurred as defined under Section 3 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "In the Section 164 CrPC statement as well as in testimony before the trial court, PW1 has only used the expression 'physical relation' or 'shareerik sambandh', without actually describing the nature of the act committed by the accused... in the light of such unsatisfactory testimony of PW1 coupled with the absence of any medical evidence, the benefit of doubt will have to be given to the accused."

Distinction Between Inducement and Voluntary Departure in Kidnapping

Addressing the charges under Sections 363 and 366 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, the Court relied on the principle established in S. Varadarajan v. State of Madras ( "1964 SCC OnLine SC 36 : (1965) 1 SCR 243": 1964 CaseBase(SC) 99) to differentiate between 'taking' a minor and a minor voluntarily leaving their guardian. The Court found that the victim had voluntarily joined the accused due to a romantic relationship, and there was insufficient evidence to prove active inducement or enticement at the time she left her home.

Background:

The case originated from an FIR registered in March 2022, where the accused was alleged to have kidnapped a 15-year-old girl and repeatedly assaulted her in Haridwar and Bihar. The trial court had previously convicted the appellant, sentencing him to 20 years of rigorous imprisonment under Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

On appeal, the High Court scrutinized the inconsistencies between the victim's initial statements and her court testimony. While the victim claimed in court that the accused was a 'cheat' who lured her, her earlier statement suggested a voluntary elopement for marriage. The Court also addressed the procedural lapse regarding Section 232 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, referencing Moidu K. vs. State of Kerala to conclude that while a hearing was mandatory, its absence did not vitiate the trial unless prejudice was proved. Ultimately, finding the evidence of sexual assault and kidnapping legally insufficient, the Court set aside the conviction.

Case Details:
Case No.: CRL.A. 844/2024 & CRL.M.(BAIL) 512/2026
Case Title: NIRMAL KUMAR v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR.
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): Ms. Aishwarya Rao and Ms. Mansi Rao, Advocates
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Utkarsh, APP for the State with SI Reena Kumari, P.S. Budh Vihar.

Source: 2026 CaseBase(DEL) 303