Delhi HC Grants Benefit of Doubt After Finding Victim’s Testimony Inconsistent

The Delhi High Court has acquitted an accused of rape and POCSO charges, observing that the conviction could not be sustained as the prosecutrix's testimony lacked the "sterling quality" required for conviction based solely on the testimony of a single witness.

Justice Chandrasekharan Sudha, sitting as a single-judge bench, set aside the trial court's order while hearing an appeal filed under Section 374 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The Court scrutinized whether the evidence on record, particularly the testimony of the victim who claimed to be in a consensual relationship and later married the accused, was sufficient to uphold the conviction under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences, 2012.

Court Rejects Sole Reliance on Inconsistent Victim Testimony

The Court observed that while the prosecution established the victim's minority through school records under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences, 2012, the primary testimony regarding sexual assault was riddled with inconsistencies. The Court highlighted that in her Section 164 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 statement, the victim made no mention of physical relations, whereas her court testimony included these details as a material improvement.

Legal Necessity of Sterling Quality Testimony

The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "It is true that the sole testimony of the prosecutrix is sufficient in an offence of such nature and corroboration is not required if the testimony of the victim is of sterling quality. However, in the case on hand, as the statements given by PW4 are not consistent, it is not possible to base the conviction solely on the testimony of PW4."

Regarding procedural lapses, the Court referred to Moidu K. vs. State of Kerala to note that non-compliance with Section 232 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 does not automatically vitiate proceedings unless prejudice is proven.

Background:

The prosecution alleged that in September 2013, the accused kidnapped a 16-year-old girl (PW4) from Delhi and took her to Bihar, where he allegedly committed rape. An FIR was registered at Kalyanpuri Police Station following a complaint by the victim's father (PW2). The trial court had previously convicted the accused in 2016, sentencing him to seven years of rigorous imprisonment.

The appellant argued that the trial court ignored the victim’s own admission that she left her home voluntarily due to her father's anger and that she eventually married the accused. The State contended that consent is immaterial since the victim was a minor at the time of the incident. However, the High Court found that the material improvements in the victim's testimony created a reasonable doubt, leading to the acquittal of the accused.

Case Details:
Case No.: CRL.A. 877/2016
Case Title: NAVEEN v. THE STATE OF NCT OF DELHI
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Hari Shanker, Advocate with Mr. Pankaj Sharma, Advocate
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Utkarsh, APP for the State; Ms. Nishtha Jain, Advocate (Amicus Curiae) for Victim

Source: 2026 CaseBase(DEL) 374