The Delhi High Court, in a judgment delivered on July 28, 2026, refused to interfere with the conviction and sentence handed down by a POCSO court in East Delhi's Karkardooma Courts. Justice Chandrasekharan Sudha, hearing the connected appeals, held that the testimony of the child witnesses was consistent, credible, and supported by medical evidence, and that a later attempt by one victim to retract her statement could not undo what had already been proved at trial.
Background Of The Case
The case dates back to August 2018, when a first information report was lodged after a school teacher alerted police that a young student had disclosed being sexually harassed at home by a relative. Investigation revealed that the accused man, referred to as A1 in court records, allegedly committed repeated acts of penetrative sexual assault against his three young cousins over roughly three years, threatening them with beatings if they spoke up. His mother, A2, was accused of being aware of the abuse and doing nothing to stop it, despite being told directly by the children.
The trial court convicted A1 under Section 376(2), 323 and 506 of the IPC along with Section 6 of the POCSO Act, sentencing him to 12 years' rigorous imprisonment. A2 was convicted under Section 109 IPC read with Section 376(2), and Section 6 read with Section 17 of the POCSO Act, and given 10 years' imprisonment. Both moved the High Court in appeal, as did the mother of the victims separately, seeking acquittal for both accused.
Arguments Raised
Counsel for A1 argued that a forensic report had failed to detect male DNA, which he said cast doubt on the prosecution version. He also pointed out that one of the three sisters had not supported the case in court. Counsel for A2 argued that mere awareness of an offence isn't the same as abetting it, and that there must be proof of active facilitation, not just silence. The victims' side, meanwhile, argued that the eldest child had since retracted her allegations, claiming she had been influenced by a teacher, and pressed for acquittal of both accused.
Court's Observations
The Court was unimpressed by the DNA argument, noting that biological samples had been collected after a delay and that degradation of such material was a real possibility, as the forensic report itself acknowledged. It held that expert opinion cannot override credible eyewitness testimony unless it completely rules out the witness's version.
On the question of the retraction, the bench was firm. It observed that the child had not been tutored by any teacher - no such suggestion was even put to the teacher during her cross-examination — and that the retraction came only at the sentencing stage, long after the trial evidence was recorded. The Court noted that the child was being cared for by relatives connected to the accused, and that this context explained the pressure she may have faced to change her stand.
On the mother's role, the Court distinguished this case from an earlier Madras High Court ruling cited by her counsel, where a mother had actively protested and been abused by the offending father. Here, the bench found A2 had instead dismissed the children's complaints and let the abuse continue, which amounted to "intentionally aiding by illegal omission" under Section 16 of the POCSO Act.
Decision
Justice Chandrasekharan Sudha held that the trial court's findings against both A1 and A2 were proved beyond reasonable doubt and suffered from no legal infirmity.
Both appeals were dismissed, and pending applications, if any, were closed.
Case Details:
Case Title: Akeel Azhar @ Rinku v. State (NCT of Delhi) & connected matter
Judge: Hon'ble Ms. Justice Chandrasekharan Sudha
Decision Date: July 28, 2026
