The Delhi High Court has upheld the acquittal of a man accused of sexually assaulting his minor niece under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, ruling that the prosecution failed to establish the case beyond reasonable doubt. Dismissing the State's appeal, the Court held that the trial court's assessment of the evidence was a "possible view" based on the material available on record and did not warrant appellate interference.
Background of the Case
The appeal arose from a March 2, 2016 judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Rohini Courts, which had acquitted Phool Chand of charges under Section 3(d) read with Section 4 of the POCSO Act and, alternatively, Section 376(2)(i) of the Indian Penal Code.
According to the prosecution, the alleged incident took place on the night of February 23, 2014, inside the prosecutrix's home in Wazirpur, Delhi. The minor alleged that her paternal uncle entered the house, sent her younger brothers outside and committed acts amounting to penetrative sexual assault. Her father allegedly arrived during the incident, confronted the accused and a quarrel followed, after which the police were called. However, the first information given to the police related only to a quarrel, while allegations of sexual assault surfaced the following day when the girl's statement was recorded.
State's Challenge to the Acquittal
The State argued that the trial court had wrongly discarded the testimony of the prosecutrix despite her consistent version during investigation and trial. It contended that her father's evidence corroborated her account and that the delay in disclosing the alleged assault was sufficiently explained because the accused was a close family member.
Take CourtBook Everywhere
Access your account on the go with our mobile app.
The prosecution further relied on the principle that conviction in sexual offence cases can rest solely on the testimony of the prosecutrix if it inspires confidence.
Court's Observations
After re-examining the evidence, the Division Bench observed that although the testimony of a prosecutrix can, in appropriate cases, form the sole basis of conviction, it must still satisfy the standard of proof required in criminal law.
The Court noted several circumstances that created reasonable doubt. It found that certain allegations such as the accused being under the influence of alcohol, asking the child to worship Saraswati Mata, and promising to bring samosas and new clothes appeared only in later statements and were absent from the earliest complaint.
The Bench also highlighted inconsistencies between the evidence of the prosecutrix and her father regarding the condition of the room's door and observed that the father's version contained significant omissions when compared with his earlier statement.
"The question is not whether conviction can ever be based on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix. Undoubtedly, it can. The real question is whether, in the present case, the testimony... is of such quality that it can form the basis for reversing an order of acquittal,"
the Bench observed.
The Court further noted that when police first reached the spot, the incident had been reported merely as a quarrel, and no allegation of sexual assault was disclosed at that stage. It also considered the admitted dispute between the families over an adjoining jhuggi, observing that while the defence was not required to prove false implication beyond reasonable doubt, it had succeeded in creating a plausible doubt about the prosecution's version.
Medical and Independent Evidence
The Bench observed that the medical evidence did not independently support the prosecution case. The prosecutrix's internal gynaecological examination was declined, leaving no medical or forensic evidence to corroborate the allegations.
The Court also noted that although public persons had allegedly gathered at the scene and beaten the accused, none of them were examined during the trial. According to the Bench, the absence of any independent witness further weakened the prosecution's case in the facts of the matter.
"The doubt in the present case is not speculative, but arises from the prosecution evidence itself,"
the Court observed while referring to the cumulative effect of inconsistencies, omissions, lack of independent witnesses and neutral medical evidence.
Decision
Referring to the Supreme Court's principles governing appeals against acquittal, the High Court held that an appellate court should not overturn an acquittal unless the trial court's findings are perverse or wholly unsupported by the evidence.
Finding no such infirmity, the Bench concluded that the prosecution had failed to establish the foundational facts necessary to invoke the statutory presumption under Section 29 of the POCSO Act and that the trial court's view was a reasonable one.
Accordingly, the Delhi High Court dismissed the State's appeal and upheld the acquittal of Phool Chand.
Case Details:
Case Title: State v. Phool Chand
Case Number: CRL.A. 157/2018
Judge: Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Madhu Jain
Decision Date: 7 July 2026
