The Delhi High Court has upheld the conviction of a man accused of assaulting and threatening a woman in a village field in North Delhi in 2001, holding that the survivor’s testimony was trustworthy and strongly supported by medical evidence. However, the Court reduced the sentence awarded to him, noting that he has faced criminal proceedings for nearly 25 years and has remained free from adverse conduct during that period.
Background of the Case
The case arose from an incident dated September 10, 2001, when the woman had gone to bring fodder from nearby fields. According to the prosecution, the accused allegedly intercepted her, dragged her into a “jowar” field, physically assaulted her, and threatened her after she resisted his advances. The woman later informed her family members, following which an FIR was registered at Narela Industrial Area police station.
A trial court had convicted Manoj Kumar under Sections 324, 354 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to varying prison terms. He challenged that judgment before the High Court, claiming false implication due to a property dispute involving the victim’s relatives.
During the appeal hearing, the defence argued that there were inconsistencies in the woman’s statements and that there was no independent corroboration of her testimony. It was also argued that allegations relating to attempted rape were added later during investigation.
Justice Vimal Kumar Yadav, however, found that the alleged inconsistencies were minor and did not weaken the prosecution’s case. The Court noted that the woman’s version was consistent with the injuries recorded in the medical examination conducted shortly after the incident.
The judgment recorded that the medical report showed abrasions, swelling, bite marks and blood stains, which matched the woman’s account that she had been dragged and assaulted inside the field.
The Court observed,
“The narrative goes hand in hand with the injuries sustained by the victim, therefore there is no reason to disbelieve the case of prosecution.”
The High Court relied on several Supreme Court decisions dealing with sexual offences and molestation cases, reiterating that conviction can rest solely on the testimony of the prosecutrix if it is reliable and inspires confidence.
Justice Yadav noted that social stigma and fear often prevent women from immediately disclosing every detail of such incidents. The Court accepted the explanation given by the survivor regarding certain omissions in her initial statement.
“The testimony of the victim alone would be sufficient,” the Court said, provided it is “impeccable” and of “sterling quality.”
While affirming the conviction, the High Court partially allowed the appeal on the question of sentence. The Court took note of the fact that the appellant was 21 years old at the time of the incident and is now nearing 50 years of age with family responsibilities.
The Court reduced the sentence to six months each for offences under Sections 324, 354 and 506 IPC, while keeping the fine amounts unchanged. It also directed that all sentences would run concurrently and ordered the appellant to surrender to serve the remaining sentence.
Case Details:
Case Title: Manoj Kumar vs. State (NCT of Delhi)
Case Number: CRL.A. 703/2008
Judge: Justice Vimal Kumar Yadav
Decision Date: May 20, 2026
