Delhi High Court on POCSO Conviction: Acquittal Granted Due to Contradictions and Doubt in Prosecution Evidence

Headnote:

The Delhi High Court set aside the conviction of the appellant under Sections 376/506 IPC and Section 4 of the POCSO Act, holding that the prosecution failed to prove foundational facts beyond reasonable doubt. The Court found material contradictions between the testimonies of the victim and her mother, unexplained delay in lodging the FIR, and doubts in the credibility of the forensic evidence, thereby extending the benefit of doubt to the accused.

Background:

1. The appellant, a neighbour of the 13-year-old victim, was convicted by the ASJ (North), Rohini, for allegedly raping and threatening the child in September 2013.
2. He was sentenced to 10 years’ rigorous imprisonment under Section 4 POCSO Act and one year under Section 506 IPC.
3. The appellant claimed false implication, asserting that the victim’s family had borrowed ₹10,000 from him and fabricated the case when he refused to lend more money.
4. He argued that the FIR was lodged after an unexplained delay of four days and the forensic report was unreliable as samples were collected four days post-incident.

Court’s Observations

1. The Court reiterated that while child witness testimony can form the sole basis for conviction if reliable, it must be free from tutoring, inconsistencies, and material improvements (State of M.P. v. Balveer Singh, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 390).
2. The victim’s testimony contained material improvements, including references to a “magic glass worth ₹15 lakhs,” which were absent in earlier statements under Sections 161 and 164 CrPC.
3. Contradictions were noted between the testimonies of the victim and her mother regarding the alleged assault on 13.09.2013.
4. The MLC recorded a non-intact hymen but no fresh injury.
5. The FSL report, though indicating presence of semen, was held unreliable as samples were taken four days after the alleged rape, and there was no evidence that the seized underwear was the same one worn on the day of the incident.
6. The Court noted admitted monetary transactions between the appellant and the victim’s parents, supporting the defence of possible false implication.
7. Held that the presumption under Section 29 POCSO Act could not operate as the prosecution failed to establish foundational facts.

Decision:

1. The Court held that the prosecution case was doubtful and the benefit of doubt must go to the accused.
2. The conviction and sentence under Sections 376/506 IPC and Section 4 POCSO Act were set aside.
3. The appellant was acquitted of all charges.

Legal Provisions Discussed:

1. Section 4, Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 – Punishment for penetrative sexual assault.
2. Sections 376 & 506, Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Punishment for rape; criminal intimidation.
3. Section 29, POCSO Act – Presumption as to certain offences.
4. Sections 161 & 164, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Recording of statements.
5. Section 45, Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Opinion of experts (DNA evidence).

Case: Ravinder Mandal v. State (NCT of Delhi)

Court: High Court of Delhi at New Delhi

Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri

Date of Decision: 06 November 2025

Criminal Appeal No.: Crl.A. 817/2017 & Crl.M.(Bail) 256/2021