Skip to main content
← back
Informative

Delhi High Court Upholds Conviction under POCSO: Age Determination through School Records Sufficient.

Update / Judgement Date

10 Nov 2025

Source

WCP News Bulletin

Author

Sakshi Bhardwaj — WCP Legal Desk

Reading Time

4 min read

Criminal LawOther Legal Matters
Delhi High Court Upholds Conviction under POCSO: Age Determination through School Records Sufficient.
WCP News Bulletin
Headnote:

The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal of a 77-year-old man convicted under Section 354/354A(2) IPC and Section 10 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act), affirming the trial court’s findings. The Court held that the victim’s age, as evidenced by school records, was conclusively proved under Rule 12 of the Juvenile Justice Rules, 2007, and that minor variations between the victim’s statements under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and her testimony did not undermine her credibility. The conviction and minimum sentence of five years’ imprisonment were upheld.


Background:
  1. The appellant, Chhote Lal (aged 77), was convicted by the Trial Court for sexually assaulting a minor girl and sentenced to five years’ imprisonment with a fine of ₹10,000.
  2. The incident occurred on 03.04.2021 when the minor went to the appellant’s shop to buy soap. The appellant allegedly pulled her inside and touched her inappropriately.
  3. The FIR was registered the same night at 11:57 PM at Police Station Ranhola under Sections 354/354A IPC and Section 10 POCSO Act.
  4. The appellant challenged the conviction on grounds that (i) the age of the victim was not properly established, (ii) there were contradictions in the victim’s statements, and (iii) delay in lodging the FIR was unexplained.


Appellant’s Contentions:
  1. The prosecution failed to prove the victim’s age; no birth certificate was produced at admission, and the date of birth was recorded only on the basis of an Aadhaar card shown by the mother.
  2. The victim’s statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. did not name the accused and differed from her in-court testimony, indicating tutoring and embellishment.
  3. The delay of nearly 10 hours in lodging the FIR was unexplained.
  4. Given the appellant’s age and disability (six fingers amputated since 1972), his conviction was unsustainable.


State’s Submissions:
  1. The victim’s school records and the certificate from the principal clearly established her date of birth as 30.10.2012, confirming her minority.
  2. The testimonies of the victim and her mother were consistent and reliable.
  3. The delay in filing the FIR was understandable considering the traumatic nature of the offence.


Court’s Observations:1. Proof of Age
  1. The Court relied on Rule 12(3) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007, which provides a hierarchy of documents for age determination.
  2. Referring to Jarnail Singh v. State of Haryana, AIR 2013 SC 3467, and Rajni v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1183, the Court held that school records are conclusive unless effectively rebutted.
  3. The principal (PW-3) produced admission forms, affidavit, and withdrawal registers showing the victim’s date of birth as 30.10.2012. These were unchallenged in cross-examination.
  4. Hence, the victim was 9 years old at the time of the incident, and her age was conclusively established.
2. Consistency of Testimony
  1. The victim’s statements under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and her deposition in court were substantially consistent in describing the sexual assault.
  2. Minor variations were attributed to her tender age and the time gap between her statement and testimony.
  3. The Court observed that the essential narrative remained coherent and credible.
3. Delay in FIR
  1. The alleged delay of a few hours was justified as the mother and daughter were in distress and awaited the husband’s presence before giving a statement.
  2. The explanation was held sufficient; the delay did not cast doubt on the prosecution’s case.


Conclusion and Decision:
  1. The High Court found no infirmity in the trial court’s judgment dated 03.08.2024 and order on sentence dated 05.11.2024.
  2. The conviction under Sections 354/354A(2) IPC and Section 10 POCSO Act was upheld.
  3. Considering the statutory minimum sentence under Section 10 POCSO Act, no further leniency was permissible.


Legal Provisions Discussed:
  1. Section 354/354A(2), Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Assault or criminal force on a woman with intent to outrage her modesty; sexual harassment.
  2. Section 10, Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 – Punishment for aggravated sexual assault (minimum five years).
  3. Rule 12(3), Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007 – Procedure for age determination.
  4. Section 164, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Recording of confessions and statements.


Case: Chhote Lal v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) & Anr.

Court: High Court of Delhi at New Delhi

Coram: Hon’ble Ms. Justice Neena Bansal Krishna

Date of Decision: 11 November 2025

Crl. Appeal No.: 78/2025 & Crl. M.B. 137/2025