The Delhi High Court has firmly upheld a conviction under the stringent Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, delivering a significant judgment that emphasizes the need for a sensitive approach towards child survivors' testimonies. The court dismissed a convict's appeal, stating that minor variations in a young child's statement, given her tender age and limited vocabulary, cannot be treated as material contradictions that undermine the case.
Court's Stern Observation on Child Testimony and Societal Norms
Justice Neena Bansal Krishna, while hearing the plea on January 5, 2026, affirmed the trial court's 2024 order that had sentenced the man to seven years of rigorous imprisonment. The court underscored a critical judicial principle: "Having regard to the tender age of the child at the time of the incident and the limited vocabulary of a child of such age, such variance cannot be treated as a material contradiction."
In a poignant observation that extended beyond the immediate case, the bench lamented the dangerous normalization of abuse in society. It noted that abuse has become so endemic that families often report only the most extreme cases involving penetration or severe violence, while lesser forms are routinely ignored or silenced. The court agreed with the Additional Solicitor General's submission that reporting is especially difficult when the abuser is a known person.
Details of the Case and Legal Reasoning
The case dates back to 2022, when an FIR was registered regarding the sexual assault of a three-year-old child. The accused was known to the survivor. After trial, he was convicted under Section 10 (punishment for aggravated sexual assault) of the POCSO Act and sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
The High Court meticulously examined the trial record. It found that the core allegation of sexual assault had remained consistent throughout the child's testimony, which was recorded in a question-answer format with due sensitivity as per guidelines. The act of making a small child touch private parts with sexual intent was correctly classified as aggravated sexual assault under the POCSO Act.
The court highlighted several key points in its ruling:
- The trial court rightly considered the victim's age while appreciating her statement.
- The vocabulary limits of a child of three or even five years cannot be overlooked by the judiciary.
- The purpose of mandatory counselling is to help the child deal with trauma, not to alter the factual account of the incident.
- Once the prosecution established the incident with cogent evidence, the presumption of guilt under Section 29 of the POCSO Act applied, shifting the burden of proof to the accused, who failed to discharge it.
Verdict and Broader Implications
Ultimately, the High Court found no merit in the appeal and dismissed it, upholding the conviction under the POCSO Act. However, it set aside the conviction under IPC Sections 354, 354A, and 354B, noting that no specific charge was framed for these offences at the trial stage.
This judgment reinforces the child-centric ethos of the POCSO Act. It sends a clear message to courts to interpret a child's testimony through a lens of understanding and developmental context, rather than holding it to the unrealistic standard of adult articulation. The ruling is a crucial step in ensuring that the legal system remains an accessible avenue of justice for the most vulnerable victims, whose voices must be heard and believed.
