Ms. Rishina Parashar, Mr. Rohan Sharma and Ms. Elisha P., Advocates v. STATE

Judgment

1. The present appeal under Section 415(2) of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023,1 assails judgement of conviction dated 10th November, 2023 and the order on sentence dated 2nd May, 2024, passed by ASJ (SC-POCSO), North District, Rohini Courts, Delhi, in Sessions Case No. 299/2020, titled “State v. Shreedhar Laxman Rangari”. The case arises 1 “BNSS” Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:ANITA BAITAL Signing Date:10.11.2025 20:08:47 CRL.A. 148/2025 Page 1 of 21 from FIR No. 457/2020 registered at Police Station Swaroop Nagar for offences under Sections 376 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860,2 and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.3 The Appellant was held guilty under Section 376(2) IPC and Section 5(n) read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act, and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 30 years with a fine of INR 2,000, and in default thereof, to simple imprisonment for one month. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

2. The relevant facts, in brief, are as follows:

2.1. The victim “J”, aged 16 years, along with her mother “S”, lodged a complaint against the Appellant Shreedhar, her maternal uncle, who had been residing with their family for the past 16 years. She alleged that about three years earlier, when she was alone at home, the Appellant came to her room, touched her inappropriately, and thereafter committed sexual intercourse with her against her will. She stated that despite her resistance and protest, the Appellant continued to sexually assault her on several occasions over the next three years, threatening that she would herself be defamed if she disclosed the matter.

2.2. She further stated that in July, 2020, the appellant travelled to his native place in Maharashtra and returned on 26th September, 2020. On that date, at about 4:00 p.m., while her parents were at work and her siblings were playing outside, the appellant allegedly entered her room and committed rape. She said she immediately disclosed the incident to her friend “A” over the phone; the friend informed her mother, whereupon the 2 “IPC” 3 “POCSO Act” Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:ANITA BAITAL Signing Date:10.11.2025 20:08:47 CRL.A. 148/2025 Page 2 of 21 victim revealed the entire matter to her.

2.3. On the basis of the complaint, the FIR was registered. The victim was medically examined, and exhibits were collected. The Appellant was arrested on 28th September, 2020, and also medically examined.

2.4. Upon completion of investigation, a chargesheet was filed; by order dated 5th April, 2021, charges were framed under Sections 376 and 506 (Part I) of the IPC and Section 5(n) read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act vide order dated 5th April, 2021.

2.5. The prosecution examined four witnesses: the victim (PW-1), her mother (PW-2), HC Sunita (PW-3), and SI Priyanka (PW-4). Their depositions broadly are as follows: Name of the witnesses PW No. PW-1 The victim/victim /“J” PW-2 Smt “S” (Mother of the victim) PW-3 HC Sunita PW-4 SI Priyanka Deposition of witnesses Deposed that her maternal uncle/accused residing with her family for 16 years, sexually assaulted her for three years. The final incident in Sep 2020 led to her telling her friend ‘A’, who informed her mother, resulting in the police statement. Deposed that she was informed by her daughter’s friend ‘A’ on 26th September, 2020, that the Appellant (her cousin), who lived with them, had been sexually assaulting the victim for three years. After the victim confirmed the abuse, she took her to the to file a police station complaint. Accompanied for medical the victim examination and was present when the the victim’s investigating officer seized exhibits (evidence) via seizure memo Ex PW3/A. the victim’s The statement (making endorsement for FIR), seized the victim’s and accused’s exhibits, prepared the site plan, arrested the accused, the next day recorded Initial IO; Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:ANITA BAITAL Signing Date:10.11.2025 20:08:47 CRL.A. 148/2025 Page 3 of 21 got the victim’s statement recorded under S. 164 Cr.P.C., and later sent case properties to the FSL.

2.6. After the conclusion of the prosecution evidence, the statement of the Appellant was recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 19734 wherein he denied the allegations made against him. The Appellant did not lead any evidence in defence.

2.7. Upon determining the age of the victim and considering the depositions of the witnesses, the Trial Court found the testimony of the victim to be clear, consistent, and credible. Having regard to the statutory presumptions under Sections 29 and 30 of the POCSO Act, the Court concluded that the Appellant had committed penetrative sexual assault upon the victim and accordingly convicted and sentenced him as noted above. SUBMISSIONS Appellant’s submissions

3. Counsel for Appellant makes the following submissions to assail the order:

3.1. The Appellant has been falsely implicated. He had always treated the victim as his daughter and had only objected to the victim’s friendship with one ‘A’. Out of resentment, the victim, in connivance with her friend, lodged a false complaint. In cross-examination, PW-1 (victim) admitted that the Appellant had stopped her from communicating with ‘A’.

3.2. The Trial Court failed to properly appreciate the evidence and rested the conviction solely on the basis of the testimonies of PW-1 (the victim) and PW-2 (her mother), which suffer from material inconsistencies, 4 “CrPC” Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:ANITA BAITAL Signing Date:10.11.2025 20:08:47 CRL.A. 148/2025 Page 4 of 21 omissions, and improvements. In particular, PW-1 did not specify basic particulars (date/time) of the alleged first incident, thereby undermining that part of her account.

3.3. The conviction, rests exclusively on the solitary testimony of PW-1 without independent medical or scientific corroboration. While the law does not insist on corroboration in every case, prudence requires that the prosecutrix’s evidence must inspire confidence and meet the “sterling witness” test; the internal inconsistencies and omissions do not permit such unqualified acceptance. Moreover in absence of corroboration, courts should be slow to uphold a conviction where the testimony lacks the ring of truth.

3.4. The prosecution did not examine the victim’s friend ‘A’, who allegedly first informed the victim’s mother about the incident and set the criminal process in motion. Non-examination of this material witness vitiates the prosecution version and renders the investigation incomplete.

3.5. The Trial Court ignored the medical record that indicates that the Appellant was suffering from erectile dysfunction for the past five years. The potency test report dated 30th September, 2020, supports this plea, yet the Court failed to consider its evidentiary value or the resulting reasonable doubt.

3.6. The Trial Court erred in relying solely on the uncorroborated testimony of the victim without exercising the caution mandated by the Supreme Court in State (NCT of Delhi) v. Vipin @ Lalla,5 wherein it was held that courts must seek corroboration from material evidence when resting conviction solely on a victim’s statement.

3.7 While the prosecution is bound to prove its case beyond reasonable Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:ANITA BAITAL Signing Date:10.11.2025 20:08:47 CRL.A. 148/2025 Page 5 of 21 doubt, the defence is only required to establish a plausible alternative on a preponderance of probabilities. The Trial Court failed to apply this settled standard and overlooked Appellant’s defence.

3.8 The Trial Court, diluted the presumption of innocence and the prosecution’s burden of proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt by treating the statutory presumption under Section 29 POCSO as operative ab initio. The presumption arises only after the prosecution first proves the foundational facts: age, occurrence, identity, and the nature of the act, through reliable evidence. Until then, the presumption of innocence remains undisturbed. Even where statutory presumptions exist, courts have cautioned against reversing the fundamental burden or overlooking reasonable doubt. On this footing, it is submitted that the Trial Court misapplied Section 29 and failed to subject the evidence to the exacting standard required for a conviction. Reliance is placed on the judgments in Narender Singh Vs State of M.P.6, Ranjit Sing Brahmajeet Sing Sharma Vs State of Maharashtra,7 and Rajesh Ranjan Yadav Vs C.B.I.8. Respondents’ submissions

4. On the other hand, Mr. Amit Ahlawat, APP for the State; Mr. Arvind Kumar, counsel for the victim; and Ms. Inderjeet Sidhu (DHCLSC), Amicus Curiae appointed by this Court, have been heard. Their submissions are summarised as follows:

4.1. The Trial Court has correctly appreciated and analysed the statements of the victim and other prosecution witnesses, and its findings are well-