Synopsis

The appellant (accused) was convicted by the trial court under Section 354 IPC and Section 12 of the POCSO Act for exposing his private parts and performing a lewd act in the presence of a 13‑year‑old girl whom he was giving a lift in his van. The victim jumped out of the moving vehicle to escape. The appellant appealed against the conviction. The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the victim’s testimony was consistent, credible and of “sterling quality,” and that conviction can be based solely on the testimony of the victim in such offences. The court also held that non‑compliance with Section 232 Cr.P.C. (hearing before acquittal) did not cause any prejudice to the accused. The appeal was dismissed.

Court: High Court of Delhi at New Delhi

Coram: Justice Chandrasekharan Sudha

Date of Judgment: 17th April 2026

Citation: CRLA.48/2017 (2026:DHC:3161)

Core Law: Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 354, 354A; Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 – Sections 11, 12; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Sections 232, 313, 374

2. Legal Framework

Major laws and provisions involved

• Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 351 (definition of assault), Section 354 (assault or criminal force to woman with intent to outrage modesty)

• Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 – Section 11 (sexual harassment), Section 12 (punishment for sexual harassment)

• Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Sections 232 (hearing before acquittal), 313 (examination of accused), 374 (appeal against conviction)

• Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 145 (contradicting witness with previous statement)

Key legal principles applied

• Conviction can be based on sole testimony of the victim: In sexual offences, the testimony of the victim, if found to be of “sterling quality” – consistent, credible and trustworthy – is sufficient to sustain a conviction without any corroboration. Minor inconsistencies do not affect credibility.

• Sterling quality of testimony: The core substratum of the victim’s testimony (identity of accused, nature of act, manner of incident) remained unshaken. Minor discrepancies in peripheral details (route taken, conversation, post‑incident events) are natural, especially whe

... Upgrade to a Premium Plan to view the full judgment.