Read Time: 06 minutes

Synopsis

The Delhi High Court, recently, allowed an appeal filed by an accused challenging the conviction order of the trial court. He was accused under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act for allegedly sexually assaulting a 14-year-old girl. 

The bench of Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Amit Sharma held, “The survivor, in fact, used the phrase ‘physical relations’, but there is no clarity as to what she meant by using the said phrase. Even the use of the words ‘samband banaya’ is not sufficient to establish an offence under Section 3 of the POCSO Act or under Section 376 IPC”. 

Advocate Yashvir Sethi, representing the Accused, submitted that the judgment delivered by the trial court lacked proper reasoning. He argued that the trial court failed to consider critical facts from the survivor's testimony, including her acquaintance with the accused for over a year and her voluntary decision to accompany him. He further highlighted that during cross-examination, the survivor explicitly stated that the accused had not subjected her to any assault.

Conversely, Additional Public Prosecutor Ritesh Kumar Bahri contended that the Section 164 statement recorded by the survivor before the Metropolitan Magistrate of the Mahila Court clearly established a case against the accused.

The court first noted that “she (Survivor) refers Appellant to be her boyfriend. She also stated that she had voluntarily gone with him on 17th March, 2017 and that he was known to her for the last one and a half years, prior to the incident”. 

The court then observed that during the cross-examination the survivor admitted that the accused neither committed any physical assault upon her nor did he commit any wrong act with her. The court further noted that the medical reports showed no external injuries. 

Furthermore, the court highlighted that, “in order to convict an accused for offences under the above stated sections, it is essential for the prosecution to prove that the accused had committed physical/sexual acts such as penetration, insertion etc., upon the survivor”. 

Additionally, the court noted that the trial court had failed to provide a reasoned order and had rather described the evidence. The court also observed that the trial court had interpreted the phrase "samband" and "physical relation" to imply sexual assault solely factoring in the young age of the survivor and the age difference between the accused and the survivor. Therefore, the court allowed the appeal and set aside the conviction order.

For Appellant: Advocates Yashvir Sethi, Amit Kumar Singh, Saksham Sethi, Pranav Sharma and Manan Soni
For Respondents: Additional Public Prosecutor Ritesh Kumar Bahri with Advocates Lalit Luthra, Divya Yadav, Dinesh Malik, Puneet Jain and Kiffi Aggarwal
Case Title: Sahjan Ali v State (2024:DHC:9947-DB)