Delhi High Court | CRL.A. 1083/2017 | State vs. Ajay Kumar Yadav | Acquittal upheld in alleged sexual assault of minor.

Headnote:

The Delhi High Court dismissed the criminal appeal filed by the State challenging the acquittal of Ajay Kumar Yadav, who had been charged under Sections 363, 366, 376 IPC and Section 4 of the POCSO Act, 2012 for alleged sexual assault and kidnapping of a minor girl, referred to as ‘Miss A’. The Court held that the trial court’s acquittal was justified due to absence of documentary proof regarding the victim’s age, failure to conduct bone ossification tests, and inconsistencies in the victim’s statements. The Court emphasized that the evidence suggested the minor had voluntarily accompanied the accused and that there was no credible medical or corroborative evidence to establish non-consent. The appeal against acquittal was dismissed, noting no manifest illegality or perversity in the trial court’s judgment.

Background:

1. Miss A, aged allegedly 13 years, went missing on 30.12.2014, prompting FIR registration by her mother at PS Aman Vihar.
2. On 03.01.2015, the victim’s mother alleged that Miss A had been kidnapped and sexually assaulted by the accused.
3. Police recorded statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C., wherein the victim alleged forcible relations and being taken to the accused’s village.
4. In her Section 164 Cr.P.C. statement before the Court, the victim claimed she was in love with the accused, voluntarily accompanied him, and returned later via the accused’s elder brother.
5. The accused, in his 20s, was charged under Section 6 POCSO and Sections 363, 366, 376 (2)(n) IPC and pleaded not guilty.
6. Prosecution examined eight witnesses; the accused did not present any defense evidence.
7. The trial court acquitted the accused citing lack of age proof, absence of bone age tests, no medical evidence, and apparent voluntary accompaniment of the victim.

Court Observations:

1. No documentary proof of the victim’s age existed, and the investigating agency failed to collect school records, birth certificate, or medical age assessment.
2. Refusal by the victim’s mother to allow gynecological examination hindered corroborative evidence collection.
3. The victim’s narrative indicated travel over 300 km by public transport without raising alarm and stay at the accused’s family residence, suggesting voluntary accompaniment.
4. Precedents including State v. Rahul (2010 SCC OnLine Del 4556) and Raju v. State (2025 DHC:8935-DB) supported the finding that the victim could have been a consenting party.
5. In appeals against acquittal, interference is restricted to cases where acquittal is manifestly perverse; no such perversity was found here.

Legal Provisions Discussed:

1. Sections 363, 366, 376 IPC – Kidnapping, abduction, and rape.
2. Section 4, POCSO Act, 2012 – Sexual assault on a minor.
3. Section 161, 164, 313 Cr.P.C. – Statements and cross-examination procedures.
4. Principles for determining age of victim under child-related jurisprudence.

Citation: 2025:DELHC:1083

Case: State Govt. of NCT of Delhi v. Ajay Kumar Yadav

Court: High Court of Delhi

Coram: Justice Vivek Chaudhary & Justice Manoj Jain

CRL.A. No.: 1083/2017