Delhi High Court
Ashok vs State on 23 July, 2026
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment Reserved on: 20.07.2026
Judgment pronounced on: 23.07.2026
+ CRL.A. 1197/2018
ASHOK .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Rohan J. Alva and Mr. Anant
Sanghi, Advocates (DHCLSC).
versus
STATE .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Utkarsh, APP for the State with
SI Neeraj, PS Nihal Vihar.
Mr. Harsh Srivastava, Amicus Curiae
with Mr. Fardin Khan, Advocate for
victim.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE CHANDRASEKHARAN SUDHA
JUDGMENT
CHANDRASEKHARAN SUDHA, J.
1. In this appeal filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.), the sole accused in Sessions
Case No. 81 of 2013 on the file of the Special Judge (POCSO),
Additional Sessions Judge-07, West District, Tis Hazari Courts,
Delhi, assails the judgment dated 23.08.2018 and order on
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 1197/2018 Page 1 of 29
Signed By:RAMAN
SHARMA
Signing Date:23.07.2026
16:40:06
sentence dated 25.08.2018, as per which he has been convicted and
sentenced for the offences punishable under Section 376, Part-I of
Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and Section 6 of
the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (the
2. The prosecution case is that around 12:00 p.m. on
29.11.2012 at Prem Singh ka Makaan near the main Ranhola Bus
Stand, Opposite Holy Convent Secondary School, New Delhi, the
accused criminally intimidated PW2, a minor girl aged seven
years, and committed aggravated penetrative sexual assault upon
her. Hence, as per the charge-sheet/final report, the accused is
alleged to have committed the offences punishable under Section
376(2)(f) IPC and Section 4 of the PoCSO Act.
3. On the basis of Ext. PW1/A FIR/FIS of PW1, given on
30.11.2012, crime no. 251/2012, Nihal Viharpolice station, that is,
Ext. PW5/A was registered by PW5, Assistant Sub-Inspector.
PW9, Women Sub-Inspector, conducted investigation into the
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 1197/2018 Page 2 of 29
Signed By:RAMAN
SHARMA
Signing Date:23.07.2026
16:40:06
crime and on completion of the same, filed the charge-sheet/final
report alleging commission of the aforementioned offences.
4. When the accused was produced before the trial court,
all the copies of the prosecution records were furnished to him as
contemplated under Section 207 Cr.P.C. After hearing both sides,
the trial court as per order dated 22.04.2013 framed a Charge
under Section 376, Part II of Section 506 IPC and Section 6 of the
PoCSO Act, which was read over and explained to the accused to
which he pleaded not guilty.
5. On behalf of the prosecution, PWs. 1 to 9 were
examined and Exts. CW1/A, PW1/A-B, PW2/A, PW4/A, PW5/A-
B, PW6/A, PW7/A-C, PW8/A-B, PW8/1 and PW9/A-D were
marked in support of the case.
6. After the close of the prosecution evidence, the accused
was questioned under Section 313(1)(b) Cr.P.C. regarding the
incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the evidence
of the prosecution. The accused denied all those circumstances and
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 1197/2018 Page 3 of 29
Signed By:RAMAN
SHARMA
Signing Date:23.07.2026
16:40:06
maintained his innocence. He submitted that he has been falsely
implicated by PW1, the mother of PW2, in connivance with his
landlord (PW3), who had a grudge against him.
7. After questioning the accused under Section 313(1)(b)
Cr.P.C., compliance of Section 232 Cr.P.C. was mandatory. In the
case on hand, no hearing as contemplated under Section 232 CrPC
is seen done by the trial court. However, non-compliance of the
said provision does not, ipso facto vitiate the proceedings, unless
omission to comply the same is shown to have resulted in serious
and substantial prejudice to the accused (See Moidu K. vs. State
of Kerala, 2009 (3) KHC 89: 2009 SCC OnLine Ker 2888).
Here, the accused has no case that non-compliance of Section 232
Cr.P.C has caused any prejudice to him.
8. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced on
behalf of the accused.
9. Upon consideration of the oral and documentary
evidence on record and after hearing both sides, the trial court,
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 1197/2018 Page 4 of 29
Signed By:RAMAN
SHARMA
Signing Date:23.07.2026
16:40:06
vide the impugned judgment dated 23.08.2018 and order on
sentence dated 25.08.2018, held the accused guilty of the offences
punishable under Section 376, Part-I of Section 506 IPC and
Section 6 of the PoCSO Act. In the light of Section 42 of the
PoCSO Act, no separate sentence has been awarded for the offence
punishable under Section 376 IPC. The accused has been
sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years as
well as fine of ₹30,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to
simple imprisonment for two months for the offence punishable
under Section 6 of the PoCSO Act and to rigorous imprisonment
for a period of 01 year for the offence punishable under Part-I of
Section 506 IPC. Aggrieved, the accused has preferred the present
appeal.
10. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the
appellant/accused that there are materially different versions of the
offence at different stages of the proceedings. In Ext. PW5/A
FIS/FIR, the allegation was of penile penetration. However, no
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 1197/2018 Page 5 of 29
Signed By:RAMAN
SHARMA
Signing Date:23.07.2026
16:40:06
description of the alleged act was given in Section 164 Cr.P.C.
statement of PW2. In her testimony, PW2 initially described the
act as finger penetration/digital rape, but during her cross-
examination, the version changed to penile penetration. The
material inconsistencies strike at the very root of the prosecution
case.
10.1. It was also submitted that Ext. CW1/A arrest memo
does not corroborate the testimony of the prosecution witnesses
regarding arrest. While Ext. CW1/A arrest memo records that the
accused was apprehended at about 06:15 p.m. from the Rishal
Garden picket, PW1, the mother of PW2, deposed that the accused
was arrested from his residence at about 11:00 p.m. PW8, the
father of PW2, stated that he himself apprehended the appellant
and brought the latter to the police station. This is also inconsistent
with the version in Ext. PW5/A FIR, wherein it is alleged that the
accused fled from the spot when PW1 confronted her. Further, the
prosecution failed to examine material witnesses, namely, the
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 1197/2018 Page 6 of 29
Signed By:RAMAN
SHARMA
Signing Date:23.07.2026
16:40:06
halwai and the brother of PW2, who could have thrown light on
the alleged incident.
10.2. It was further submitted that although Ext. PW8/A
MLC records that the hymen “appeared to be torn”, PW8 deposed
that it was possible for the hymen not to be torn. PW8 admitted
that the observations recorded in the MLC do not constitute a
conclusive opinion of sexual assault. Ext. PW8/A medical
evidence does not conclusively support the prosecution case.
10.3. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the
competency of PW2, the child witness, was not assessed by the
trial court before recording her testimony, as required under
Section 118 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. PW2 was
approximately seven years of age at the time of her deposition, yet
no proper preliminary examination was conducted to ascertain
whether she possessed sufficient intelligence and understood the
duty to speak the truth.
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 1197/2018 Page 7 of 29
Signed By:RAMAN
SHARMA
Signing Date:23.07.2026
16:40:06
10.4. It was lastly submitted that PW2 identified the
appellant for the first time during her deposition before the trial
court. No Test Identification Parade was conducted, and the dock
identification, made for the first time in court, is unreliable.
Therefore, it was prayed that the impugned judgment be set aside
and that the appellant be given the benefit of doubt. In support of
the arguments, reference was made to the dictums in BH vs. State
NCT of Delhi 2026 SCC OnLine Del 2593; Gajender Singh v.
State NCT of Delhi 2025 SCC OnLine Del 9196 and Pradeep v.
State of Haryana, (2023) 19 SCC 221.
11. Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor
submitted that the impugned judgment suffers from no infirmity
warranting interference by this Court. It was submitted that, given
the tender age of PW2, Ext. PW8/AMLC records the hymen as
torn and also notes blood spotting on the labia majora, which is
indicative of sexual assault and corroborates the testimony of
PW2. It was further submitted that Ext. PW1/A FIR/FIS of PW1
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 1197/2018 Page 8 of 29
Signed By:RAMAN
SHARMA
Signing Date:23.07.2026
16:40:06
shows that the accused was identified by PW1 soon after the
incident. Therefore, it cannot be contended that the accused was
identified for the first time before the trial court.
12. The learned counsel appearing for the victim submitted
that the appellant had not established any plea of alibi or any other
circumstance that could probabilise his innocence. As per Section
313(1)(b) Cr.P.C. statement of the accused, four to five persons
were present in the room at the time of his arrest. Despite disputing
the prosecution case, the accused has not examined any of the said
persons to support his case. Further, the prosecution had examined
sufficient witnesses to establish its case and, therefore, no adverse
inference ought to be drawn merely because some witnesses were
not examined. The learned counsel further submitted that PW2 had
consistently identified the appellant before her parents and the
Court. Moreover, there was no apparent motive for PW1, the
mother of PW2, to falsely implicate the accused in such a serious
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 1197/2018 Page 9 of 29
Signed By:RAMAN
SHARMA
Signing Date:23.07.2026
16:40:06
offence. It was prayed that the appeal be dismissed and the
conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court be upheld.
13. Heard both sides and perused the record.
14. The only point that arises for consideration in the
present appeal is whether there is any infirmity in the impugned
judgment calling for an interference by this court.
15. I shall make a brief reference to the oral and
documentary evidence relied on by the prosecution in support of
the case. Ext. PW1/A, the FIS/FIR of PW1, the mother of PW2,
the victim, recorded on 30.11.2012, reads thus:”On 29.11.2012 at
around 12:00 p.m., I sent my daughter (PW2) to the halwai’s shop
to get samosas. My third son, aged 4 years, also went with her. I
had given ₹5/- to her (PW2). When a considerable amount of time
had passed, and my daughter (PW2) and son had still not
returned, I went out to look for them. I reached Pappu Halwai’s
shop and enquired with the people nearby, describing the
appearance of my children. A person told me that he had seen two
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 1197/2018 Page 10 of 29
Signed By:RAMAN
SHARMA
Signing Date:23.07.2026
16:40:06
children matching their description in the alley adjacent to Pappu
Halwai’s shop. I walked into the alley, and after going a little
further, I saw my daughter (PW2) coming towards me crying. A
short distance away, my son was standing there. I scolded my
daughter (PW2), asking why she had gone for playing when she
had been sent to get samosas. I then returned home with my
children. However, my daughter (PW2) continued crying softly for
a long time after we got home. I suspected that something was
wrong and that something untoward had happened to her. When I
questioned my daughter (PW2) about it, she did not say anything
at first but later told me that a man put his private part into her
private part. (एक आदमी ने अपनी पे शाब करने वाली जगह को मे री
पेशाब करने वाली जगह मई डाली है ) At around 05:30 p.m., my
husband reached home, and I told him everything. For a long time,
my husband and I were pondering whether or not to disclose the
matter to anyone, as it was a question of our honour and respect in
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 1197/2018 Page 11 of 29
Signed By:RAMAN
SHARMA
Signing Date:23.07.2026
16:40:06
society. However, my husband and I gathered courage and, along
with our daughter (PW2), went to Prem Singh’s house near
Ranhola Bus Stand, opposite Holy Convent Sec. School, New
Delhi. On the ground floor in a room, a man was sleeping, whom
my daughter (PW2) identified as the man who did the wrong act
on her. Upon learning that the man’s name was Ashok, I asked him
how he had dared to commit such a heinous act on my daughter
(PW2). Hearing this, he fled from there. After that, my husband
and I went to the police station. Legal action should be taken
against that person named Ashok.”
16. Ext. PW2/A Section 164 Cr.P.C. statement of PW2, the
prosecutrix, seen recorded by the Metropolitan Magistrate on
20.12.2012 reads thus:- On a Sunday, an unknown man (the
accused) approached her while she was playing on the road. The
man asked her to accompany him to his home. When she refused,
he grabbed her, threatened to kill her and throw her away, and
forcibly took her to his house. Once inside, he slapped her. When
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 1197/2018 Page 12 of 29
Signed By:RAMAN
SHARMA
Signing Date:23.07.2026
16:40:06
she attempted to run away, he locked the gate and told her to stay
there. When she again refused, he locked the gate. He undressed
her pants and jeans, took off his own pants, and committed a
wrong act (ganda kaam) with her. He was wearing jeans. He
climbed on top of her stomach and continued committing wrong
acts against her for approximately two hours. When the man
finally released her after about two hours, she broke the door of his
gate using a brick and managed to escape. She immediately ran to
her own house and narrated the incident to her mother. Her mother
had the man arrested, and he is currently in jail. She wants the man
who committed wrong acts against her to be punished.
17. PW2 when examined before the trial court, identified
the accused. She deposed that an uncle (the accused) took her to
his room while she and her brother were eating samosas. Once
inside the room, the accused removed her pants and inserted his
finger into her private part. She began to cry and ran out of the
room. She returned to her house and told the incident to her mother
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 1197/2018 Page 13 of 29
Signed By:RAMAN
SHARMA
Signing Date:23.07.2026
16:40:06
(PW1), who then called the police. The police made inquiries with
her in the presence of her mother (PW1) and then took her to the
hospital. Upon further questioning by the prosecutor, PW2
admitted that the accused had put his private part into her private
part and had threatened to kill her.
17.1. PW2, in her cross-examination, initially deposed that
she had seen the accused for the first time in the court and that the
accused had not taken her to his room. She immediately thereafter
deposed that she was lying (aaj mai jhuth bol rahi thi). On further
questioning, PW2 further deposed that it was infact the accused
who had taken her to his room. She had not seen the accused again
after the incident until she saw him in the court. She was taken to
the police station on the night of the incident, accompanied by her
mother (PW1) and was taken to the hospital by the police on that
same night. The incident occurred on a Sunday.
18. PW1, the mother of PW2, deposed that on 29.11.2012,
at about 12:00 noon, she sent her daughter (PW1) along with her
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 1197/2018 Page 14 of 29
Signed By:RAMAN
SHARMA
Signing Date:23.07.2026
16:40:06
son to purchase samosas from a nearby shop. When PW2 did not
return home till about 04:00 p.m., she went out in search of her
daughter (PW2). A person in the gali informed her that her
daughter (PW2) and her son were seen near the shop of Pappu
Halwai. She accordingly went towards the said place and found
her son in the gali, while her daughter (PW2) was also coming in
the gali, weeping. On enquiry, her daughter (PW2) did not say
anything initially. She returned home with both her children.
However, her daughter (PW2) continued to cry at home. On
further enquiry as to whether anything wrong had happened to her,
her daughter (PW2) told her that, “ek admi ne apni pishab karne
wali jagah ko meri pishab karne wali jagah mein dali hai”. At
about 05:00 p.m., she called her husband and informed him of the
incident. Thereafter, both of them, along with their daughter
(PW2), went to the place where the alleged incident had occurred.
A person present inside the room was identified by her daughter
(PW2) as the person who had assaulted her. PW1 identified the
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 1197/2018 Page 15 of 29
Signed By:RAMAN
SHARMA
Signing Date:23.07.2026
16:40:06
accused before the trial court. She accompanied her daughter
(PW2) to the hospital for the medical examination. They led the
police to the room of the accused, who was apprehended at about
11:00 p.m. on the same day.
18.1. PW1, in her cross-examination, stated that she is
unaware of the room number of the accused. The shop of Pappu
Halwai is situated at a walking distance of about 05 to 10 minutes
from her house, and Pappu Halwai was known to her. Her
daughter (PW2) was taken to the hospital at about 11:30 p.m. on
the same day. The room occupied by the accused is situated in
two-storeyed premises. The accused used to reside there alone,
while about twelve boys resided in the adjacent rooms. Several
boys were present in the premises when they went to the room of
the accused. The room of the accused is situated at a distance of
about 10 to 15 steps from the shop of Pappu Halwai.
19. PW3 deposed that he had given one of the rooms in his
house for rent to the accused.
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 1197/2018 Page 16 of 29
Signed By:RAMAN
SHARMA
Signing Date:23.07.2026
16:40:06
20. PW8 (he should have been PW9, but wrongly recorded
by the trial court as PW8), Dr. Ashoo Gupta, Specialist (Gynae),
Sanjay Gandhi Memorial Hospital, Delhi, deposed that Dr. Ankita
had worked under him as a Junior Resident during his tenure in the
Gynecology Department at Sanjay Gandhi Memorial Hospital,
Delhi. He is familiar with the handwriting and signature of Dr.
Ankita. He identified the handwriting and signature of Dr. Ankita
in Ext. PW8/A MLC No. E-106558 of PW2. The observations
recorded in the MLC were written by Dr. Ankita. PW8 was unable
to identify the handwriting or signature of Dr. Subhash. However,
he admitted that as per the MLC, Dr. Subhash had referred the
victim for a gynecological opinion after observing that there was
no fresh external injury seen in the medical examination.
20.1. PW8 in his cross-examination, admitted that he had no
direct personal knowledge of the case. He admitted that the MLC
does not record any injury on the victim (PW2). However, the
MLC does note the presence of a slightly old blood stain at the
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 1197/2018 Page 17 of 29
Signed By:RAMAN
SHARMA
Signing Date:23.07.2026
16:40:06
labia majora, which is unusual in a seven-year-old child. When
asked about the age of the blood stain, PW8 deposed that the MLC
indicated the sexual assault occurred on 28.11.2012, while the
victim’s (PW2) medical examination took place on 30.11.2012 and
so, the blood stain could have been two days old, though he could
not confirm whether it might have been older than two days. When
asked to comment on why the doctor who examined PW2 had
recorded in the MLC that the “hymen appears to be torn”, PW8
answered that he had no comments on the same. When further
asked thus:- “Since in the MLC, it has been mentioned that the
hymen appears to be torn, is there a possibility that it was not
torn? Ans:- It could be a possibility. Voltd. It is also mentioned in
the MLC that the patient was not allowing the examination”. When
asked if any observation in the MLC indicated sexual assault, PW8
answered that the medical observations regarding the blood stain
and the hymen appearing to be torn, when evaluated alongwith the
history of sexual assault provided by the victim’s mother (PW1),
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 1197/2018 Page 18 of 29
Signed By:RAMAN
SHARMA
Signing Date:23.07.2026
16:40:06
were indicative of sexual assault. When asked if the medical
findings alone, without taking into account the history provided by
the mother (PW1), could establish a case of sexual assault, PW8
answered that it could possibly be a case of sexual assault.
21. The question that arises is whether the aforesaid
evidence is sufficient to find the accused guilty of having
committed the offences punishable under Part I of Section 506
IPC, Section 376 and Section 6 of the PoCSO Act beyond
reasonable doubt. The defence has not disputed the age of PW2
before this Court. Accordingly, the prosecution has successfully
established that PW1 was a ‘child’ within the meaning of the
22. The prosecution case primarily rests upon the testimony
of PW2, PW1 and PW8 as well as on the medical evidence. A
careful reading of Ext. PW2/A statement under Section 164
Cr.P.C. and the testimony of PW2 before the trial court shows that
she has remained consistent on the core aspect that the
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 1197/2018 Page 19 of 29
Signed By:RAMAN
SHARMA
Signing Date:23.07.2026
16:40:06
appellant/accused took her to his room, subjected her to
penetrative sexual assault and threatened her. The inconsistencies
pointed out by the learned counsel for the accused regarding the
exact manner of penetration are not of such magnitude as to
demolish the prosecution case. Certain amount of discrepancies or
inconsistencies in the testimony of a child witness is natural,
particularly when the witness is as young as seven years old and is
deposing after a considerable lapse of time, in the case on hand
after about two years of the incident. The testimony of PW1
corroborates the immediate disclosure of the incident by PW2 to
the former. Moreover, the testimony of PW1 and PW2 has not
been discredited in any way.
23. The defence of the accused is that he has been falsely
implicated by PW1 in connivance with PW3, his landlord, as the
latter bore a grudge against him. However, the accused has never
such a case when PW3, his landlord, was examined. Not even a
suggestion is seen put to PW3 that the latter harboured a grudge
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 1197/2018 Page 20 of 29
Signed By:RAMAN
SHARMA
Signing Date:23.07.2026
16:40:06
against the accused for some reason(s). Hence, in the absence of
any plausible explanation or explanation for that matter or
materials to discredit the prosecution witnesses, the version put
forth by the prosecution remains trustworthy.
24. Ext. PW8/A the MLC of PW2 records that the hymen
appeared to be torn and notes the presence of an old blood stain at
the labia majora. The absence of external injuries does not negate
the occurrence of sexual assault. I have already referred to the
testimony of PW8 in detail. The learned counsel for the
appellant/accused, referring to the testimony of PW8 wherein he
admitted that as the MLC only says that “hymen appears to be
torn”, there could be a possibility that the hymen was not torn,
submitted that this answer of PW8 is yet another aspect to doubt
the prosecution case. I am afraid I am unable to agree to this
argument because while appreciating the testimony of a witness,
the testimony has to be read as a whole and stray sentences are not
to be extracted and read out of context. As noticed earlier, PW8
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 1197/2018 Page 21 of 29
Signed By:RAMAN
SHARMA
Signing Date:23.07.2026
16:40:06
has also deposed that taking into account all aspects recorded in
the MLC, a case of sexual assault is certainly made out.
25. Further, it is well settled that medical evidence is
primarily corroborative in nature and cannot override reliable
ocular testimony. As held in Solanki ChimanbhaiUkabhai v.
State of Gujarat, AIR 1983 SC 484, ordinarily, the value of
medical evidence is only corroborative. It proves that the injuries
could have been caused in the manner alleged and nothing more.
The use which the defence can make of the medical evidence is to
prove that the injuries could not possibly have been caused in the
manner alleged and thereby discredit the eyewitnesses. Unless,
however the medical evidence in its turn goes so far that it
completely rules out all possibilities whatsoever of injuries taking
place in the manner alleged by eyewitnesses, the testimony of the
eyewitnesses cannot be thrown out on the ground of alleged
inconsistency between it and the medical evidence (See also
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 1197/2018 Page 22 of 29
Signed By:RAMAN
SHARMA
Signing Date:23.07.2026
16:40:06
Rangnath Shamrao Dhas v. State of Maharashtra, (2009) 4
SCC 33: 2009 KHC 4471).
25.1. As held by the Apex Court in Ram Swaroop v. State
of Rajasthan, 2008 Cr. L.J2259, when there is a variance
between medical evidence and ocular evidence, it is trite law that
oral evidence has to get primacy and medical evidence is basically
opinionative. It is only when the medical evidence specifically
rules out the injury as claimed to have been inflicted as per the oral
testimony, then only in a given case the Court has to draw adverse
inference. Over dependence on such opinion evidence, even if the
witness is an expert in the field, to checkmate the direct testimony
given by an eyewitness is not a safe modus adoptable in criminal
cases. It has now become axiomatic that medical evidence can be
used to repel the testimony of eyewitnesses only if it is so
conclusive as to rule out even the possibility of the eyewitness’s
version to be true. A doctor usually confronted with such questions
regarding different possibilities or probabilities of causing those
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 1197/2018 Page 23 of 29
Signed By:RAMAN
SHARMA
Signing Date:23.07.2026
16:40:06
injuries or post mortem features which he noticed in the medical
report may express his views one way or the other depending upon
the manner the question was asked. But the answers given by the
witness to such questions need not become the last word on such
possibilities. After all he gives only his opinion regarding such
questions. But to discard the testimony of an eyewitness simply on
the strength of such opinion expressed by the medical witness is
not conducive to the administration of criminal justice. Similar
view has been expressed in Mange v. State of Haryana, (1979) 4
SCC349; State of U.P. v. Krishna Gopal AIR 1988 SC 2154;
Ram Dev v. State of U.P.(1995) Supp. (1) SCC 547; State of
U.P. v. Harban Sahai (1998) 6 SCC 50 and Ramanand Yadav v.
Prabhu Nath Jha (2003) 12 SCC 606.
25.2. In the case on hand, the medical evidence is neither
inconsistent nor does it rule out all possibilities whatsoever of the
incident as spoken to by PW1.
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 1197/2018 Page 24 of 29
Signed By:RAMAN
SHARMA
Signing Date:23.07.2026
16:40:06
26. As far as the argument regarding inconsistency in the
place or time of arrest is concerned, the same has not affected the
case in any manner. It is well settled that defective investigation
cannot be made the basis for acquitting the accused if, despite such
defects and failures on the part of the investigation team, a case is
made out against the accused. (See State of U.P. v. Hari Mohan,
2000 KHC 1753: (2000) 8 SCC 598). If the prosecution in a given
case adduces evidence to establish the guilt of the accused beyond
reasonable doubt, the Court cannot acquit the accused on the
ground that there are some defects in the investigation, but if the
defects in the investigation are such as to cast a reasonable doubt
in the prosecution case, then of course the accused is entitled to
acquittal because of such doubt. (See Ganga Singh v. State of
M.P., 2013 KHC 4515: (2013) 7 SCC 278).
27. Another argument advanced was regarding the non-
examination of independent witnesses. Mere non-examination of
every witness to the incident cannot result in an adverse inference
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 1197/2018 Page 25 of 29
Signed By:RAMAN
SHARMA
Signing Date:23.07.2026
16:40:06
when the evidence actually adduced is cogent, credible and
sufficient to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Moreover,
evidence has to be weighed and not counted.
28. It was further submitted by the learned defence counsel
that the trial court failed to properly assess the competency of PW2
before recording her testimony. PW2, being a child witness, there
is every possibility of the witness being tutored. Hence, the
testimony of PW2 cannot be relied on for the purpose of proving
the prosecution case. In support of this argument, reference was
made to the dictum in Pradeep (supra). Section 118 of the
Evidence Act declares every person to be competent to testify
unless the Court considers that, by reason of tender years, extreme
old age, disease or any other similar cause, such person is
incapable of understanding the questions put to him or of giving
rational answers. Explanation to Section 118 states that a lunatic is
not incompetent to testify, unless he is prevented by his lunacy
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 1197/2018 Page 26 of 29
Signed By:RAMAN
SHARMA
Signing Date:23.07.2026
16:40:06
from understanding the questions put to him and giving rational
answers to them.
28.1. The competency of a child witness depends on the
satisfaction of the trial court as to the child’s understanding and
ability to depose; non-administration of oath is not fatal; and
though courts must remain alive to the possibility of tutoring, there
is no bar in law to base conviction solely on the testimony of a
child witness who withstands cross-examination. (See State of
Rajasthan v. Chatra, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 566).
28.2. In Pradeep (supra), it was not only because the Apex
Court found that a proper voir dire had not been conducted by the
trial court, but it was also found for reasons recorded therein as
why the prosecution case was doubtful.
29. In the case on hand, it is seen from the records that the
trial court was satisfied that PW2 was able to give rational answers
to the questions put to her and thereafter, her testimony was
recorded. Moreover, the defence never seemed to have had a case
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 1197/2018 Page 27 of 29
Signed By:RAMAN
SHARMA
Signing Date:23.07.2026
16:40:06
that PW2 was an incompetent witness unable to understand the
questions put to her. On the other hand, the defence counsel seems
to have conducted a full fledged cross-examination of the witness.
Nothing has been brought out in her cross-examination to indicate
that she lacked the intellectual capacity to understand the
proceedings or was incapable of giving truthful answers. The
defence has also no case that sufficient time or opportunity had not
been given to properly cross-examine PW2.
30. It was further submitted by the learned defence counsel
that the identification of the accused by PW2 is doubtful as she
admitted that she had seen the appellant/accused for the first time
before the trial court. In the absence of a TIP, the identification
cannot safely be relied upon, goes the argument.
31. The testimony of PW1 establishes that immediately
after the occurrence, PW2 accompanied her parents to the room
where the accused was residing and identified him as the person
who had committed the offence. PW1 has consistently deposed
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 1197/2018 Page 28 of 29
Signed By:RAMAN
SHARMA
Signing Date:23.07.2026
16:40:06
that, upon being confronted, the accused fled from the spot.
Further, the identity of the accused is never seen disputed during
the trial. Nothing has been brought on record to suggest that the
accused was falsely or incorrectly identified or that PW2 had some
reason(s) to falsely implicate him.
32. On a cumulative appreciation of the oral and
documentary evidence, this Court finds no reason to disbelieve the
testimony of PW2. The findings recorded by the trial court are
based on proper appreciation of evidence and do not suffer from
any perversity or illegality, warranting an interference by this
Court.
33. The appeal sans merit is dismissed.
34. Application(s), if any, shall stand closed.
CHANDRASEKHARAN SUDHA
(JUDGE)
JULY 23, 2026
rs
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 1197/2018 Page 29 of 29
Signed By:RAMAN
SHARMA
Signing Date:23.07.2026
16:40:06
