Delhi HC Upholds POCSO Conviction of Stepfather Despite Victim Turning Hostile in Court [Read Judgment]

New Delhi: The Delhi High Court has dismissed the appeal filed by Jahid, upholding his conviction under Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012, for sexually assaulting his minor stepdaughter. The Court’s decision, delivered on December 23, 2025, primarily relied on scientific evidence, medical reports, and the victim’s initial statements, despite the victim and her family turning hostile during the trial.

The appeal (CRL.A. 619/2023) challenged the judgment dated December 18, 2021, and the sentence order dated May 3, 2023, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, which had sentenced the appellant to 20 years of rigorous imprisonment. The charges arose from an incident on the night of March 25, 2016, when the minor victim was assaulted while sleeping at her home.

Justice Amit Mahajan, who presided over the case, meticulously analysed the evidence, acknowledging that “the victim resiled from her case during her examination-in-chief and left the prosecution to establish the alleged offences beyond reasonable doubt without the support of their star witness.” The appellant’s defence was largely premised on the subsequent testimony of the victim and her family members, who sought to implicate an unknown individual named “Vicky” as the perpetrator.

However, the High Court found the initial evidence to be compelling and reliable. The judgment noted that the medical examination conducted on the day of the incident recorded in the sexual history that the assault was “by father after drunk at home around 2:30 AM on 25.03.2016.” Crucially, the prosecution’s case was further strengthened by the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) report. The Court observed that “the FSL report indicates that the DNA of the accused matched with the DNA present on the underwear of the victim and the result of the FSL analysis materialised that the alleles from the source Ex. 10 (gauze cloth piece of accused) are accounted in the alleles from the source of Ex. 8 (underwear of the victim).”

The Bench also highlighted the victim’s statement recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, wherein she sought clemency for the appellant, stating, “Papa ko chhod do. Ghar mein koi kamane wala nahi hai. Hum akele pad jayenge. Papa ko chhod do.” The Court observed that this statement reflected the victim’s “evident worries about finances” and the “possibility of her being pressured by supervening circumstances” to shield her stepfather, who was the sole breadwinner of the family. This financial dependency was held to be the likely reason for the “sudden somersault” by the prosecution witnesses.

Justice Mahajan emphasised the significance of the statutory presumptions under the POCSO Act, concluding that “the foundational facts stood established by the prosecution.” Consequently, “the presumptions under Sections 29 and 30 of the POCSO Act were triggered, and the burden was then on the appellant to prove otherwise.”

Ultimately, the High Court held that the conviction did not warrant interference, observing that “the unbreached chain of custody of the FSL evidence, coupled with the initial statements of the victim as well as her mother and sister, make out a strong case beyond reasonable doubt against the appellant.” The Court also declined to interfere with the sentence awarded by the Trial Court, noting that the punishment of 20 years of rigorous imprisonment was the minimum prescribed under Section 6 of the POCSO Act.

Case Details:

Case No.: CRL.A. 619/2023 & CRL.M.(BAIL) 1092/2023

Title: Jahid v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)

Coram: Hon’ble Mr Justice Amit Mahajan

Judgment Delivered On: 23.12.2025

Appearances:

For the Appellant: Mr. Harsh Prabhakar (DHCLSC), with Mr. Dhruv Chaudhary, Mr. Shubham Sourav & Mr. Vijit Singh, Advocates

For the State: Mr. Sunil Kumar Gautam, APP, with SI Ravinder Chander, PS Amar Colony

For the Victim/R2: Mr. Faraz Maqbool (DHCLSC), with Mr. A. Sahitya Veena & Ms. Deepshikha, Advocates

Amicus Curiae: Ms. Anu Narula, Advocate

[Read Judgment]