The Delhi High Court has dismissed an appeal filed by a man challenging his conviction under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act and related provisions of the Indian Penal Code. Justice Chandrasekharan Sudha found no infirmity in the trial court’s judgment or sentence.
The judgment was pronounced on September 9, 2026, in Ram Pravesh Thakur v. State of N.C.T. of Delhi. The Court examined the statements of the minor, the evidence of her brother and mother, and the defence claim that he had been falsely implicated following a dispute over repayment of a ₹50,000 loan.
Background
According to the prosecution case, the incident took place on April 3, 2022, between around 3:30 and 4:00 pm at the minor girl’s house in Delhi. The accused, identified as her paternal uncle, had been staying with the family for seven to eight days. A complaint was lodged the same day, following which an FIR was registered at Sagar Pur Police Station and the police filed a chargesheet alleging offences under Sections 10 and 12 of the POCSO Act and Section 354 IPC.
The trial court subsequently framed charges under Sections 354, 354B and 509 of the IPC and Sections 10 and 12 of the POCSO Act. The accused pleaded not guilty and denied the allegations.
After considering the evidence, the trial court convicted him under Sections 10 and 12 of the POCSO Act and Sections 354 and 354B IPC. By its sentencing order dated July 12, 2025, it awarded five years’ simple imprisonment and a ₹5,000 fine under Section 10 POCSO, and two years’ simple imprisonment with a ₹3,000 fine under Section 12 POCSO. No separate sentence was imposed for the IPC offences in view of Section 42 of the POCSO Act.
Before the High Court, the accused maintained that he had been falsely implicated because he was seeking repayment of a ₹50,000 loan allegedly given to the minor’s mother. He also argued that the incident was improbable because it occurred on a Sunday when the family members were expected to be at home.
Justice Sudha noted that the minor’s account was supported by the evidence of her brother. The Court found no substantial inconsistency or defect in their testimony that would justify rejecting their version.
The Court also rejected the argument that the incident was improbable because it occurred on a Sunday when family members were expected to be at home.
"The mere fact that the incident occurred on a Sunday does not improbabilise the case because PW3 deposed that it is not necessary that all members remain at home all throughout the day," the Court observed.
The Court further found the loan-related defence difficult to accept. It noted that, if the accused’s purpose was only to recover money, his decision to miss a train and return to the family’s house required explanation.
The Court held that the alleged conduct of approaching the girl, touching her shoulder, unzipping his trousers and exposing himself indicated sexual intent and fell within the relevant POCSO provisions.
The Delhi High Court held that there was no infirmity in the trial court’s judgment requiring interference.
"The appeal, sans merit, is dismissed," the Court ordered. Pending applications, if any, were also closed.
Case Title: Ram Pravesh Thakur v. State of N.C.T. of Delhi
Case Number: CRL.A. 1669/2025 & CRL.M.A. 36549/2025
Judge: Justice Chandrasekharan Sudha
Decision Date: September 9, 2026
