The Delhi High Court has convicted a man under Section 376(2)(f) IPC for raping a four-and-a-half-year-old girl, setting aside a 2010 trial court order that had let him off the rape charge and convicted him only for outraging her modesty. A Division Bench of Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Ravinder Dudeja pronounced the verdict on September 2, 2026.
Background of the Case
The case dates back to August 2008. The child, who lived with her family at a rented house in Najafgarh, used to visit the room of her neighbour, Munna Kumar, for tuition. She called him "Bhai." On the night of August 10, 2008, she returned home bleeding from her private part. Her parents first took her to a private nursing home and then to DDU Hospital the next day, where doctors flagged it as a suspected rape case and alerted the police. Munna Kumar was arrested the same day.
In April 2010, the Additional Sessions Judge acquitted Munna Kumar of rape but convicted him under Section 354 IPC, sentencing him to one-and-a-half years' rigorous imprisonment. The trial court reasoned that the child never used the word "penetration" in her testimony, so rape could not be said to be proved.
Court's Observations
The High Court found this reasoning flawed. It held that a child witness cannot be expected to describe sexual assault in technical or anatomical terms.
"The testimony of a child witness cannot be assessed on the touchstone of technical, legal or medical terminology, but must be appreciated by considering its substance, the surrounding circumstances and the natural manner in which the child of such a tender age narrates such a traumatic incident of rape."
The Bench noted that the child had consistently described how the accused removed her clothes, made her lie down, and caused her pain, after which she bled. This account was corroborated by medical evidence of a torn hymen, forensic reports showing human semen on her underwear, and blood and semen on articles recovered from the accused's room.
The Court also observed that no suggestion was ever put to prosecution witnesses disputing the core allegations, and the accused's own defence - that he was falsely implicated over a money dispute - was self-contradictory.
Decision
The High Court set aside the trial court's judgment and sentence, convicting Munna Kumar under Section 376(2)(f) IPC. As he was not present in court, non-bailable warrants were ordered for his production.
The matter has been listed for September 10, 2026, for arguments on sentencing.
Case Details
- Case Title: State v. Munna Kumar
- Case Number: CRL.A. 584/2011
- Judges: Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Ravinder Dudeja
- Decision Date: September 2, 2026
 Act (UAPA)-300x169.webp)
 and Advocates-300x169.webp)
