Alok Yadav@Aalok Yadev vs State Of Nct Of Delhi on 25 May, 2026

May 27, 2026

Delhi High Court

Alok Yadav@Aalok Yadev vs State Of Nct Of Delhi on 25 May, 2026

1. The appellant has, by way of this appeal, assailed the judgment
dated 15.02.2025 [hereafter ‗impugned judgment’] and order on
sentence dated 27.02.2025 [hereafter ‗impugned order on sentence’],
passed by the learned Additional Sessions Special Judge (FTSC)
(POCSO), South-East District, Saket Courts, Delhi [hereafter ‗Trial
Court’], whereby he has been convicted in SC No. 119/2020, arising

SPONSORED

CRL.A. 576/2025 Page 1 of 26
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:26.05.2026
15:01:43
out of FIR No. 21/2020, registered at Police Station Sarita Vihar,
Delhi, for the commission of offence punishable under Sections
376/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 [hereafter ‗IPC‘] and
Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act,
2012 [hereafter ‗POCSO Act‘].

FACTUAL BACKDROP

2. The FIR in the present case was registered on the basis of a
written complaint lodged by the father of the victim child, alleging
therein that in August 2017, he had come to Delhi along with his wife
‗K’ and their minor daughter ‗S’ (victim) in search of employment. In
Delhi, he had become acquainted with one Alok Yadav (the appellant
herein) who had arranged private jobs for him and his wife, and
thereafter they had started residing in a house at Jasola, Sarita Vihar.
It was alleged that in October 2018, when the victim child expressed
her wish to return to her native place, the complainant had requested
his father to take her back to the village. After the victim had been
sent home, the co-accused ‗K’ and the appellant Alok insisted on
bringing her back. When the complainant asked his mother (the
victim’s grandmother) to send the child back to Delhi, the victim
refused and, while tearfully narrating to her grandmother, disclosed
the acts committed by the appellant and her mother ‗K’. She revealed
that whenever her father was away on night duty, the appellant and
co-accused ‗K’ would sleep together on the same bed and made her
sleep beside them. They would then engage in indecent acts (gande

CRL.A. 576/2025 Page 2 of 26
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:26.05.2026
15:01:43
kaam) in her presence, and the appellant herein would also commit
such indecent acts (gande kaam) with her. She further stated that
whenever she resisted, her mother would beat her and compel her to
submit to the appellant, saying that he was the one running the
household. She also narrated that when she threatened to disclose the
incident to her father, both the appellant and her mother assaulted her
and threatened to kill her father. It was alleged that after learning of
these disclosures, the complainant and his parents were devastated,
while the victim child was deeply shocked and became fearful at the
very sight of men. It was alleged that the appellant, with the active
assistance of the mother ‗K’, had repeatedly subjected victim ‗S’ to
sexual assault. On these allegations, the present FIR was registered
on 18.01.2020.

3. During the course of investigation, the victim was medically
examined at AIIMS Hospital, Delhi, her statement under Section 164
of the Cr.P.C. was recorded before the learned Magistrate, and the
accused persons were arrested. After completion of investigation,
charge sheet was filed before the concerned Court, pursuant to which
charges were framed against the accused persons.

4. During the trial, the prosecution examined 10 witnesses to
prove its case. Thereafter, statements of accused persons were
recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. but no defense evidence was
led by them. After hearing final arguments, the learned Trial Court
was pleased to convict the appellant for commission of offence

CRL.A. 576/2025 Page 3 of 26
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:26.05.2026
15:01:43
punishable under Section 6 of POCSO Act and Section 376AB of
IPC, whereas the co-accused ‗K’ was convicted for commission of
offence under Section 6 read with Section 17 as well as Section 21 of
the POCSO Act, vide impugned judgment dated 15.02.2025.

5. By way of order on sentence dated 27.02.2025, the learned
Trial Court sentenced the appellant herein to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for a period of 25 years and fine of Rs. 50,000/- for
offence under Section 6 of POCSO Act.

6. Aggrieved therefrom, the appellant has preferred the present
appeal.

7. It is also pertinent to note, at this stage, that the appeal against
conviction preferred by the co-accused ‗K’ (mother of the victim)
was dismissed by this Court vide judgment dated 18.09.2025 passed
in Crl.Appeal No. 829/2025.

SUBMISSIONS BEFORE THE COURT

8. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant has argued
that the prosecution case suffers from an inordinate and unexplained
delay in reporting the matter to the police for registration of the FIR.
It is submitted that the alleged incidents pertain to the period 2017-
2018, whereas the FIR was lodged only on 18.01.2020. It is
contended that the victim had been residing with her grandparents
since October 2018 and, therefore, there was no plausible reason for
the delay of more than one year in reporting the matter to the police.

CRL.A. 576/2025 Page 4 of 26
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:26.05.2026
15:01:43

It is further argued that the medical evidence does not support the
prosecution case. The learned counsel submits that the medical
examination of the victim was conducted nearly two years after the
alleged incidents and, therefore, the MLC has no evidentiary value
insofar as the alleged sexual assault is concerned. It is pointed out
that despite allegations of repeated sexual assault over a prolonged
period, the medical examination did not reveal any hymenal rupture,
old injuries, scars, or signs of force. It is also contended that there is
complete absence of any forensic or DNA evidence connecting the
appellant with the alleged offence. The learned counsel has also
assailed the testimony of PW-1 by contending that there are material
contradictions in her version regarding the first disclosure of the
incident. It is argued that at different stages of investigation, the
victim has claimed to have first informed different family members,
which makes the prosecution story doubtful and suggests that the
witness had been tutored. It is further submitted that the victim had
initially described the bed on which the alleged acts took place as a
single bed, whereas later she stated that it was a double bed in a room
measuring 9×9 feet, which is a material improvement affecting the
credibility of her testimony. It is next argued that PW-2, the
grandmother of the victim, is not an eyewitness to the incident in
question and her testimony is entirely hearsay in nature. He further
argues that, while the victim has disclosed the incidents in the year
2018, PW-2 testified that she was informed only in November 2019

CRL.A. 576/2025 Page 5 of 26
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:26.05.2026
15:01:43
about the offence, which creates inconsistency in the prosecution
story. The learned counsel has further contended that PW-4, the
father of the victim has admitted to having strained matrimonial
relations with co-accused ‗K’, and this demonstrates that the present
case is a result of family and matrimonial disputes. It is argued that
despite the victim allegedly being in the custody of her grandparents
since 2018, PW-4 did not immediately approach the police, which is
unnatural conduct. Lastly, it is argued that the prosecution case is
improbable and unreliable inasmuch as the alleged acts are stated to
have occurred in a small shared room occupied by multiple persons.
It is submitted that the delay in lodging the FIR, absence of medical
and forensic evidence, contradictions in testimonies of the witnesses
and the prosecutrix herself, in the background of admitted family
disputes cumulatively create serious doubt regarding the prosecution
case. On these grounds, it is prayed that the appellant be acquitted as
the prosecution has failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable
doubt.

9. The learned APP for the State, along with the learned counsel
appearing for the victim child, has argued that the offence in question
is extremely grave and serious in nature, considering that the victim
was merely about 10-11 years old at the relevant time and was
repeatedly subjected to aggravated penetrative sexual assault by the
present appellant. It is submitted that the appellant had committed the
said acts with the active assistance of co-accused ‗K’ i.e. the mother

CRL.A. 576/2025 Page 6 of 26
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:26.05.2026
15:01:43
of the victim child, who already stands convicted vide judgment of
this Court dated 18.09.2025. It is further argued that the testimony of
the victim is wholly reliable, categorical, and consistent on all
material particulars. The victim has consistently narrated the
incidents of sexual assaults in her statements recorded under Section
161 of Cr.P.C., Section 164 of Cr.P.C., as well as in her deposition
before the learned Trial Court. It is contended that despite detailed
and lengthy cross-examination, the defence could not elicit any
material contradiction going to the root of the prosecution case. It is
also argued that the appellant, in his statement recorded under
Section 313 of Cr.P.C., has merely denied the allegations by taking a
plea that he has been falsely implicated by the father of the victim as
he was aware of the consensual relationship between him and co-
accused ‗K’. It is further argued that the testimony of the victim child
is credible and trustworthy and, therefore, does not require
independent corroboration for sustaining conviction. It is argued that
the absence of medical or forensic evidence is not fatal once the
ocular testimony of the prosecutrix inspires confidence. In any event,
it is contended that the testimony of the victim stands duly
corroborated by the testimonies of PW-2 (paternal grandmother),
PW-4 (father), and PW-6 (paternal grandfather). Particular emphasis
has been laid upon the testimony of PW-2, who categorically deposed
that when she had asked the victim why she was unwilling to return
to Delhi, the victim had disclosed that the appellant had repeatedly

CRL.A. 576/2025 Page 7 of 26
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:26.05.2026
15:01:43
established physical relations with her and had threatened her not to
reveal the incidents to anyone. The said version stands corroborated
by PW-4 (biological father of the prosecutrix) and PW-6 (paternal
grandfather of the prosecutrix). It is also contended that the
discrepancies pointed out by the defence counsel, such as regarding
the nature of the bed or the person to whom the victim first disclosed
the incidents, are minor in nature and do not affect the core of the
prosecution case. It is argued that a child witness recounting
traumatic incidents after lapse of time cannot be expected to narrate
every minute detail with photographic precision, and such minor
inconsistencies are natural and inconsequential. As regards the delay
in registration of the FIR, it is contended that the same stands
sufficiently explained from the evidence on record. It is argued that
the victim had disclosed the incidents only when she was being asked
to return to Delhi and reside again with the appellant and co-accused
‗K’, whereafter she broke down and narrated the incidents to her
grandmother. It is further submitted that the tender age of the victim,
coupled with the surrounding family circumstances and the illness of
PW-2, adequately explain the delay, and therefore, the same cannot
be treated as fatal to the prosecution case. Lastly, it is argued that
once the foundational facts constituting the offences under the
POCSO Act stand established, the statutory presumptions under
Section 29 and 30 of the POCSO Act are attracted against the
appellant, which he clearly has failed to rebut. Therefore, it is prayed

CRL.A. 576/2025 Page 8 of 26
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:26.05.2026
15:01:43
that the present appeal be dismissed.

10. This Court has heard arguments addressed by the learned
counsel for the appellant as well as the learned APP for the State and
the learned counsel for the victim, and has perused the material
available on record.

ANALYSIS & FINDINGS

11. The facts of this case are stark, wherein a 10-11 year old girl
was subjected to repeated sexual assault by the appellant, which was
allowed and facilitated by her own mother (co-accused ‗K’). Before
examining the case set up by the prosecution, it is apposite to first
take note of the relevant legal provisions under the POCSO Act.

Relevant Legal Provisions

12. The offences for which the appellant has been convicted by the
learned Trial Court are Section 376AB of the IPC and Section 6 of
the POCSO Act. Section 376AB of the IPC prescribes punishment
for the offence of rape committed upon a girl below twelve years of
age, and the provision reads as follows:

―376AB. Punishment for rape on woman under twelve
years of age.–

Whoever, commits rape on a woman under twelve years of age
shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which
shall not be less than twenty years, but which may extend to
imprisonment for life, which shall mean imprisonment for the
remainder of that person’s natural life, and with fine or with
death:

CRL.A. 576/2025 Page 9 of 26
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:26.05.2026
15:01:43

Provided that such fine shall be just and reasonable to meet the
medical expenses and rehabilitation of the victim:
Provided further that any fine imposed under this section shall
be paid to the victim.‖

13. Further, Section 6 of the POCSO Act prescribes punishment
for aggravated penetrative sexual assault committed upon a child.
The said provision reads as follows:

―6. Punishment for aggravated penetrative sexual
assault.–

(1) Whoever commits aggravated penetrative sexual assault
shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which
shall not be less than twenty years, but which may extend to
imprisonment for life, which shall mean imprisonment for the
remainder of natural life of that person and shall also be liable
to fine, or with death.

(2) The fine imposed under sub-section (1) shall be just and
reasonable and paid to the victim to meet the medical expenses
and rehabilitation of such victim.‖

14. Lastly, Sections 29 and 30 of the POCSO Act, being the
presumptive provisions relevant to the adjudication of the present
case, are also required to be considered. The said provisions read as
under:

―29. Presumption as to certain offences.

Where a person is prosecuted for committing or abetting or
attempting to commit any offence under sections 3, 5, 7 and
section 9 of this Act, the Special Court shall presume, that such
person has committed or abetted or attempted to commit the
offence, as the case may be unless the contrary is proved.‖

―30. Presumption of culpable mental state.

CRL.A. 576/2025 Page 10 of 26
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:26.05.2026
15:01:43

(1) In any prosecution for any offence under this Act which
requires a culpable mental state on the part of the accused, the
Special Court shall presume the existence of such mental state
but it shall be a defence for the accused to prove the fact that he
had no such mental state with respect to the act charged as an
offence in that prosecution.

(2) For the purposes of this section, a fact is said to be proved
only when the Special Court believes it to exist beyond
reasonable doubt and not merely when its existence is
established by a preponderance of probability.

Explanation.- In this section, ―culpable mental state‖ includes
intention, motive, knowledge of a fact and the belief in, or
reason to believe, a fact.‖

Age of the Victim

15. Firstly, insofar as the age of the victim is concerned, this Court
notes that the prosecution has led evidence to establish that the victim
was a minor at the relevant time. PW-3, Dr. Pramod Kumar Mishra,
Principal/In-charge, Composite Ucch Prathmic Vidyalya, Bairi,
Ganesh Pur, Shiksha Chhetra Jahangir Ganj, had produced the school
admission register and proved the entry relating to the victim’s date
of birth as 30.11.2007. The learned Trial Court has rightly recorded
that on the basis of the said testimony, the date of birth of the victim
stands proved, and that the offence in question was committed during
the period 2017 to 2018, and therefore, the victim was only about 10
to 11 years of age at the relevant time. Significantly, the testimony
of PW-3 has remained unchallenged, since the accused persons did
not cross-examine the said witness on any aspect, despite opportunity
given nor was any argument was raised to dispute either the
authenticity of the school records or the fact of the victim being a

CRL.A. 576/2025 Page 11 of 26
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:26.05.2026
15:01:43
minor at the time of alleged incident.

16. Accordingly, this Court is of the opinion that the prosecution
has duly proved that the victim was a child within the meaning of
Section 2(1)(d) of the POCSO Act at the time of the commission of
the offences. Thus, the provisions of the POCSO Act stand fully
attracted in the present case. Therefore, in this regard the findings of
the learned Trial Court does not suffer from any infirmity or
illegality.

Appreciation of Prosecution Evidence

17. In the above backdrop, this Court finds that it has been a
consistent case of the prosecution, as evident from the testimonies of
the prosecution witnesses, that in August 2017, the victim child,
along with the co-accused/mother ‗K’, her father (PW-4), and her
other siblings, had come to Delhi and had started living in a rented
accommodation at Jasola, Sarita Vihar. The biological father of the
prosecutrix had started working as security guard while the co-
accused/mother ‗K’ had joined Apollo Hospital, Delhi. Further, as
alleged, the accused/appellant Alok had played an instrumental role
in securing employment for both of them in Delhi, and he used to
reside in the same building in Delhi as that of the family of the
victim.

18. PW-1, the victim child, who was examined by the learned
Trial Court, has deposed that the appellant Alok used to often visit

CRL.A. 576/2025 Page 12 of 26
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:26.05.2026
15:01:43
the house of the victim, both when her father (PW-4) used to be
present in the house and in his absence. However, insofar as the
alleged incidents are concerned, the victim child has deposed that the
same used to take place in the absence of her father, when he used to
be at his place of work. She has specifically deposed that the
appellant used to remove her clothes, touch her private parts and
insert his penis into her vagina. She has also deposed that upon her
protesting to such acts, the appellant used to threaten her by saying
that her father and brother would be killed if she disclosed about
these incidents to anyone. Pertinently, she has also highlighted the
role of the co-accused/mother ‗K’, in facilitating the commission of
the said offence. In her testimony, she has categorically stated that
the co-accused ‗K’ used to silence her voice whenever she raised an
alarm, beat her and instead asked her to let the the appellant do
whatever he was doing, saying that ―ye sab nahi hoga to ghar ka
kharch kaise chalega‖. She has further deposed that the appellant
used to rape her during the day time as well as in the night, regardless
of whether her mother was awake or asleep. She also testified that the
co-accused ‗K’ used to sleep beside the appellant, and the appellant
used to sleep between her and the co-accused ‗K’. She also stated that
she had disclosed these incidents to her grandmother, bua and chacha
and thereafter, she was brought to Delhi for lodging the FIR. In her
cross-examination, she has clarified that on the said bed, four people
used to sleep and the sequence of the same was – the victim,

CRL.A. 576/2025 Page 13 of 26
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:26.05.2026
15:01:43
appellant Alok, co-accused ‗K’, and the victim’s brother. She also
clarified that her father had taken her to his village in October 2018.

19. Having considered the testimony of PW-1, the testimony of
PW-2, i.e. the victim’s grandmother, reflects that she was the first
person who had been informed of the alleged incidents by the victim.
She has deposed that her son (PW-4), along with his wife (co-accused
‗K’) and two children including the victim, had shifted to Delhi in
August 2017. PW-2 has stated that she was seriously ill since
November 2017 and was diagnosed with cancer in February 2019,
whereafter she remained continuously ill and had to be operated upon
twice. In the meantime, in October 2018, the victim had been sent to
her maternal grandmother’s home first, after which she was brought
to the home of PW-2 i.e. her paternal grandmother. PW-2 has
deposed that her medical situation remained critical till November-
December 2019, as she was undergoing chemotherapy; and
thereafter, when she had asked the victim child to return to Delhi at
the residence of her parents, the victim had informed her of the
alleged incidents of commission of sexual assault upon her by the
appellant Alok and co-accused ‗K’. Thereafter, PW-2 had called the
victim’s father and informed him about the details disclosed by the
victim. As deposed by PW-2, it was pursuant thereto that she along
with her husband (PW-6), the victim (PW-1), and the victim’s father
(PW-4), had reached Delhi on 18.01.2020 and reported the incident
to the police.

CRL.A. 576/2025 Page 14 of 26
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:26.05.2026
15:01:43

20. At this stage, it would be material to take note of the testimony
of the grandfather of the victim, who was examined as PW-6 before
the Trial Court. In his testimony, he has narrated the sequence of
events, which corroborates the version of his wife, i.e. the victim’s
grandmother. He has specifically deposed that he had brought the
victim child from the house of her maternal grandmother, to his
home, and that his wife i.e. PW-2 had been informed by the victim of
the acts committed by the appellant Alok as well as the co-accused
‗K’s role therein. Furthermore, as deposed by him, they had informed
the victim’s father about the facts disclosed by the victim child and
thereafter, four of them had come to Delhi to lodge the FIR in
question.

21. Now, the fourth material witness, whose testimony is to be
considered, is PW-4 i.e. the father of the victim child. He is also the
complainant in the case, at whose instance the FIR was registered. He
has supported the prosecution’s case and has deposed that he was
informed by his mother (i.e. PW-2) that the victim child had
disclosed to her that she had been sexually abused by the appellant, in
the presence of the co-accused ‗K’. Thereafter, he had come to Delhi
along with his parents and the victim child and had got the FIR
registered.

22. Thus, the broad facts and allegations, as clearly emerging from
the testimonies of PW-1, PW-2, PW-4 and PW-6 are that:

● The appellant was closely associated with the family of the

CRL.A. 576/2025 Page 15 of 26
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:26.05.2026
15:01:43
victim who had won their trust as he had been instrumental in
getting employment to the parents of the victim, lived in the
same building, and frequently visited the house of the victim.

● The appellant was having consensual sexual relations with the
victim’s mother (co-accused ‗K’), and that the victim’s mother
and the appellant used to sleep beside her on the same bed,
with the appellant sleeping between the victim and co-accused
‗K’.

● The victim (PW-1) has categorically alleged that the appellant
repeatedly committed penetrative sexual assault on her, at her
home in Delhi, whenever her father was away for work.

● The victim has further deposed that her mother (co-accused
‗K’), facilitated the commission of offence by silencing her,
beating her when she resisted, and telling her to let the
appellant do as he wished since otherwise, they would not be
able to meet household expenses.

● The victim left Delhi in October 2018; first stayed with her
maternal grandmother, and thereafter was brought to the house
of her paternal grandparents.

● During this period, her grandmother (PW-2) was seriously ill
and was undergoing treatment for cancer; later, when the
grandmother asked the victim to return to her parents’ house in
Delhi, the victim disclosed the incidents of sexual assault

CRL.A. 576/2025 Page 16 of 26
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:26.05.2026
15:01:43
committed upon her by the accused persons.

● The victim’s grandmother (PW-2) subsequently disclosed the
incidents to her husband i.e. victim’s grandfather (PW-6), who
corroborated in his testimony that PW-2 had informed him of
the disclosures made by the victim.

● Both grandparents thereafter informed the victim’s father (PW-

4), following which all three of them brought the victim to
Delhi on 18.01.2020 and got the FIR registered.

23. The above-noted prosecution witnesses were cross-examined
at length, and several questions were put to them to impeach their
testimony. However, despite some minor contradictions, their
testimonies have remained firm and consistent on the material aspects
of the prosecution’s case.

24. The victim, both in her statement recorded under Section 164
of Cr.P.C. as well as in her testimony recorded before the learned
Trial Court, which is considerably detailed, has remained categorical
and consistent that she was subjected to repeated sexual abuse over a
period of time by the appellant Alok. She has also consistently
alleged that her mother ‗K’, was fully aware of such acts being
committed by the present appellant, yet instead of intervening, she
chose to scold and beat her whenever she protested.

25. Thus, in view of the testimonies discussed above, a prima facie
case stands established by the prosecution. Consequently, the

CRL.A. 576/2025 Page 17 of 26
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:26.05.2026
15:01:43
statutory presumption under Section 29 of the POCSO Act would be
attracted against the appellant herein, shifting the burden upon him to
rebut the same with cogent material/evidence.

Defense of Accused

26. The accused persons, in their statements recorded under
Section 313 of Cr.P.C., denied the allegations levelled against them.
Co-accused ‗K’, in her statement recorded under Section 313 of
Cr.P.C., alleged that PW-6, i.e. the victim’s grandfather, had been
insisting that she enter into sexual relations with him and that, upon
her refusal, she had been falsely implicated in the present case. In
contrast, the present appellant Alok stated in his statement recorded
under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. that he was in a consensual sexual
relationship with co-accused ‗K’, and that her husband (PW-4) was
aware of the same, owing to which he had falsely implicated him.

27. However, this Court notes that during the cross-examination of
PW-4 (victim’s father), he had categorically denied the suggestion
put to him by the defense counsel that the appellant Alok had been
falsely implicated on account of any alleged intimate relationship
between him and co-accused ‗K’. Further, insofar as the allegations
levelled by co-accused ‗K’ against PW-6 are concerned, this Court
also notes that no such suggestion was ever put to PW-6 during his
cross-examination. Thus, the defence sought to be raised by the
accused persons is clearly unsupported by any material brought on

CRL.A. 576/2025 Page 18 of 26
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:26.05.2026
15:01:43
record. This Court also notes that the accused persons had adopted
mutually contradictory stands before the learned Trial Court. While
co-accused ‗K’ attempted to attribute false implication in the present
case to the conduct of PW-6, the present appellant attributed the same
to the alleged matrimonial discord arising out of his purported
relationship with co-accused ‗K’. In this Court’s opinion, these
inconsistent defences, taken by the accused persons inter se,
materially weaken the credibility of their case. It is also pertinent to
note that the appellant Alok did not lead any defence evidence in
support of his case.

28. In contrast, the statements of the victim have remained
consistent on all material particulars/aspects throughout the
proceedings and are also corroborated by the testimonies of PW-2,
PW-4, and PW-6 regarding the details of the incidents of the sexual
assault, disclosed by the victim and the surrounding circumstances.
No cogent evidence was led by the appellant to rebut the statutory
presumption under Section 29 of the POCSO Act. Apart from bare
denial, no substantive defence was raised, nor was any defence
witness examined in support of the case set up by the appellant.

29. The learned counsel for the appellant herein has contended that
the victim child had failed to disclose the alleged incidents at the
earliest possible opportunity. However, in the opinion of this Court,
the delay in this disclosure does not affect the credibility of the
prosecution’s case. At the relevant time, the victim was barely around

CRL.A. 576/2025 Page 19 of 26
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:26.05.2026
15:01:43
10-11 years of age, living in an environment where the very person
expected to protect her i.e. her own mother was instead facilitating
the appellant in committing the offence in question. In such
circumstances, it would be wholly unrealistic to expect a child of
such tender age to muster the courage to promptly disclose the
repeated sexual abuse she was subjected to. Her eventual disclosure
to her grandmother and thereafter to other family members, when she
found a safe environment away from the accused persons, appears to
be both natural and credible. Thus, the delayed disclosure of incidents
of sexual assault made by the victim child cannot be treated as an
infirmity in the prosecution’s case.

30. In addition, it has been argued on behalf of the appellant that
the delay of more than a year in registration of FIR makes the
prosecution’s case doubtful. This Court however finds that the delay
has been satisfactorily explained in the evidence of prosecution
witnesses. It stands established that PW-2, the grandmother of the
victim, to whom the victim first disclosed the incidents, was herself
seriously ill, suffering from cancer, and undergoing surgeries and
chemotherapy during the relevant period. PW-6, the grandfather of
the victim, was primarily occupied in taking care of her. The
complainant PW-4 (victim’s father) was wholly unaware of the
incidents of sexual assault until he was informed by PW-2. PW-2 was
informed about the incidents by the victim child as soon as her
medical condition had improved, and especially when the victim was

CRL.A. 576/2025 Page 20 of 26
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:26.05.2026
15:01:43
asked to return to her parents’ house in Delhi. Thereafter, the present
FIR came to be registered.

31. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has consistently emphasized that
delay in disclosure and delay in registration of FIR, particularly in
cases of sexual assault upon children, must be considered in the light
of the sensitivities involved. In State of Himachal Pradesh v. Sanjay
Kumar: (2017) 2 SCC 51, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed
as under:

―30…..At the same time, after taking all due precautions which
are necessary, when it is found that the prosecution version is
worth believing, the case is to be dealt with all sensitivity that
is needed in such cases. In such a situation one has to take
stock of the realities of life as well. Various studies show that
in more than 80% cases of such abuses, perpetrators have
acquaintance with the victims who are not strangers. The
danger is more within than outside. Most of the time,
acquaintance rapes, when the culprit is a family member, are
not even reported for various reasons, not difficult to fathom.
The strongest among those is the fear of attracting social
stigma. Another deterring factor which many times prevents
such victims or their families to lodge a complaint is that they
find whole process of criminal justice system extremely
intimidating coupled with absence of victim protection
mechanism…‖

32. Thus, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, and
considering the family dynamics, fear and trauma which the victim
must have endured, and her vulnerable age, this Court finds that the
delay in registration of the FIR is fully explained and does not in any
way corrode the credibility of the prosecution case.

33. Another contention raised on behalf of the appellant is that the

CRL.A. 576/2025 Page 21 of 26
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:26.05.2026
15:01:43
victim had materially improved her statement regarding the bed on
which she used to sleep with the appellant and co-accused ‗K’. It has
been argued that she had initially described it as a single bed and had
later clarified it to be a double bed. This Court finds that such a
discrepancy is minor and insignificant in nature. The testimony of a
child witness cannot be expected to be accurate in such minute
details, especially when she was recounting traumatic events from an
impressionable age. At that age, it is highly probable that she would
not have known or understood the distinction between a single and a
double bed. What is material is that she has consistently deposed that
she used to sleep on the same bed with the appellant and co-accused
mother ‗K’, when the appellant used to commit sexual assault upon
her. When weighed against the consistent, cogent, and categorical
testimony of the victim, coupled with the corroborative statements of
the grandparents and father, such minor discrepancies pale into
insignificance. The learned Trial Court has, therefore, rightly rejected
this contention of the appellant, and this Court finds no reason to take
a different view.

34. Furthermore, it has been contended on behalf of the appellant
that there is no medical evidence in this case to support the
allegations of sexual assault. However, it is material to note that the
absence of any medical evidence, such as injuries on the private parts
of the victim, is explained by the fact that the victim had disclosed
the incidents much later, i.e. more than a year after they had taken

CRL.A. 576/2025 Page 22 of 26
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:26.05.2026
15:01:43
place, for the reasons already noted above, to her grandmother, and
the FIR was eventually registered in January 2020. By that stage, it
was neither possible nor reasonable to expect any medical evidence
of injuries etc. to be present. This Court is also of the view that when
consistent ocular testimony of the victim child is available, lack of
medical evidence can be no ground to discredit her version [Ref:

Deepak Kumar Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh: 2025 SCC OnLine
SC 1610].

35. Equally relevant is the settled legal principle that conviction on
the sole testimony of the victim is sustainable, provided her evidence
is of sterling quality, free from material inconsistencies or inherent
improbabilities [Ref: State NCT of Delhi v. Pankaj Chaudhary:

(2019) 11 SCC 575]. It is also trite law that minor inconsistencies,
especially in the testimony of a child victim of sexual assault, do not
affect the substratum of the prosecution’s case. [Ref: State of Punjab
v. Gurmit Singh: (1996) 2 SCC 384; Pappu v. State of Uttar
Pradesh: 2022 SCC OnLine SC 176].

Conclusion : Case Proven Beyond Reasonable Doubt

36. In light of the discussion made above, this Court is of the
opinion that the evidence, both oral and documentary, clearly
establishes that the victim was a child of tender age at the relevant
time and that she was repeatedly subjected to penetrative sexual
assault by the present appellant Alok over a considerable period of

CRL.A. 576/2025 Page 23 of 26
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:26.05.2026
15:01:43
time. To reiterate, the victim child has consistently deposed that
whenever her father used to leave for work, the appellant would
commit penetrative sexual assault upon her against her wishes, and
would threaten her with dire consequences if she disclosed the
incidents to anyone. Her testimony on material particulars has
remained clear, cogent, and unshaken throughout the course of trial.
The co-accused ‗K’, mother of the victim child, who was expected to
protect and care for the child, instead facilitated the commission of
the offences by the appellant. Her conviction has already been upheld
by this Court.

37. Therefore, the consistent version of the victim regarding the
acts committed by the appellant, coupled with the surrounding
circumstances and the testimonies of PW-2, PW-4, and PW-6, clearly
establishes that the victim child was subjected to repeated aggravated
penetrative sexual assault while she was only about 10-11 years of
age.

38. It is pertinent to note that once the prosecution had laid the
foundational facts by proving the age of the victim, the commission
of the sexual acts, and the involvement of the appellant, the statutory
presumptions under Sections 29 and 30 of the POCSO Act
necessarily came into operation, as already discussed hereinabove.
The burden thus shifted upon the appellant to rebut the said
presumptions by leading cogent evidence or furnishing a credible
explanation. However, no material was brought on record by the

CRL.A. 576/2025 Page 24 of 26
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:26.05.2026
15:01:43
appellant to probabilise his defence or to weaken the prosecution
case. No defence evidence was led, nor was any circumstance
established which could rebut the statutory presumptions operating
against him.

39. In this backdrop, this Court is of the considered view that the
essential ingredients of the offences alleged stand duly established
beyond reasonable doubt. The testimony of the victim inspires
confidence, is natural and trustworthy, and finds adequate
corroboration from the surrounding circumstances as well as the
testimonies of the other prosecution witnesses. The minor
discrepancies pointed out by the defence are insignificant in nature
and do not affect the core of the prosecution’s case. Thus, this Court
finds that the charges for offence under Section 6 of POCSO Act and
Section 376AB of IPC are proved beyond reasonable doubt against
the appellant.

40. As regards the quantum of sentence, this Court notes that while
the minimum prescribed punishment for the offence under Section 6
of the POCSO Act is twenty years and the maximum is imprisonment
for life, the learned Trial Court has awarded a sentence of twenty-five
years’ of rigorous imprisonment to the appellant as well as to the co-
accused ‗K’. While doing so, the learned Trial Court has observed
that the gravity of the acts committed had caused deep alarm in
society and irreparable trauma to the victim; and that, in the interest
of justice, a balance has to be maintained between the reformative

CRL.A. 576/2025 Page 25 of 26
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:26.05.2026
15:01:43
and deterrent theories of punishment. The learned Trial Court has
also emphasized that the extent of punishment must depend on the
atrocity of the crime, the conduct of the offenders, and the helpless
state of the victim, and that appropriate punishment should reflect not
only the rights of the accused but also the rights of the victim and
society at large, thereby conveying the community’s abhorrence of
such crimes.

41. This Court is in agreement with the aforesaid observations.
Considering the nature of the allegations and the fact that the minor
victim child was subjected to repeated sexual assault within the
supposed safety of her own home, with the active participation of her
mother, no leniency is warranted in the matter while considering the
quantum of sentence. The punishment awarded by the learned Trial
Court is therefore just, appropriate, and commensurate with the
gravity of the offences proved against the appellant.

42. In view of the foregoing observations, the impugned judgment
of conviction as well as order on sentence is upheld.

43. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. Pending application, if
any, also stands disposed of.

44. The judgment be uploaded on the website forthwith.

DR. SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, J
MAY 25, 2026/TD/RB

CRL.A. 576/2025 Page 26 of 26
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:26.05.2026
15:01:43

Source link

Welcome to Airr News

Welcome to Airr News

Forever

Recommended

1-Year

1-Month

Welcome to Airr News

Forever

Recommended

1-Year

1-Month

Welcome to Airr News

Alok Yadav@Aalok Yadev vs State Of Nct Of Delhi on 25 May, 2026

Delhi High Court