Netram Kumar vs The State Of NCT Of Delhi

Madhu Jain, J.

This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

The present appeal has been preferred under Section 415 read with Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as 'BNSS'), assailing the judgment of conviction dated 16.04.2026 and the order on sentence dated 15.05.2026 passed by the learned ASJ/Special Judge (POCSO), Shahdara, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi in Sessions Case No. 374/2018 arising out of FIR No. 678/2016 registered at Police Station Nand Nagri, whereby the Appellant has been convicted for offences punishable under Sections 354 and 354A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as, ‘IPC’) and Section 10 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as, ‘POCSO’) and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years along with a fine of ₹2,000/-.

Briefly stated, the prosecution case is that on 11.08.2016, a complaint was lodged by the prosecutrix, a minor student, alleging that the Appellant, who was employed in her school as a drawing teacher, had subjected her to inappropriate conduct on different occasions within the school premises. On the basis of the said complaint, FIR No. 678/2016 came to be registered at Police Station Nand Nagri for offences under Section 354A IPC and Section 10 of the POCSO Act. Investigation was entrusted to SI Ina Kumari. The Appellant was interrogated and arrested on 12.08.2016 and was thereafter medically examined and produced before the learned Court.

During the course of investigation, statements of the prosecutrix and other witnesses were recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Cr.P.C.’). The statement of the prosecutrix under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded by the Metropolitan Magistrate, Shahdara, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi, on 17.08.2016.

Upon completion of investigation, the charge-sheet was filed before the learned Trial Court in the year 2018. The case was registered as Sessions Case No. 374/2018 and was committed to the Court of Sessions. On 24.07.2018, the learned Trial Court took cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 354A/202/354 IPC and Sections 10/21(2) of the POCSO Act and directed issuance of summons to the accused persons.

After hearing the parties on the question of charge, the learned Trial Court, vide order dated 17.07.2019, found a prima facie case against the Appellant for offences punishable under Sections 354, 354A IPC and Section 10 of the POCSO Act, and against co-accused Asha Kumari for an offence punishable under Section 21 of the POCSO Act. On 19.11.2019, charges were accordingly framed against the Appellant for offences punishable under Sections 354 and 354A IPC and Section 10 of the POCSO Act. The Appellant pleaded not guilty to the charges and claimed trial. Thereafter, on 02.12.2019, a charge under Section 21 of the POCSO Act was framed against co-accused Asha Kumari, who also pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.In support of its case, the prosecution examined ten witnesses. The prosecutrix was examined as PW-1. PW-2 HC Yogesh was examined in relation to the arrest and personal search of the Appellant. PW-3 ASI Devender Kumar, the then Duty Officer, was examined to prove the registration of the FIR and the connected formalities. PW-4, a friend of the prosecutrix, and PW-5, her mother, were examined in relation to the circumstances surrounding the alleged incidents. PW-6, the elder sister of the prosecutrix, and PW-7, her father, were examined with respect to the disclosures allegedly made by the prosecutrix and the subsequent events at the school and the reporting of the matter to the police. PW-8 SI Sangeeta and PW-9 Inspector Ina Kumari were examined as Investigating Officers. PW-10 Sadanand Bhardwaj, a teacher of the concerned school, was examined in relation to the school records and the date of birth of the prosecutrix.

The prosecution evidence was closed on 21.03.2024. Thereafter, the statement of the Appellant under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded. The Appellant denied the incriminating circumstances put to him and expressed his intention to lead evidence in his defence. In defence, the Appellant examined two witnesses, namely DW-1 Ms. Deepti Sati, Teacher, GGSS School, Karawal Nagar, and DW-2 Smt. Alka Chaudhary, Deputy Director of Education, Zone-VI. The defence evidence was thereafter closed.

Upon conclusion of the evidence and after hearing the parties, Vide judgment dated 16.04.2026, the learned Trial Court convicted the Appellant for offences punishable under Sections 354 and 354A IPC and Section 10 of the POCSO Act. Vide order on sentence dated 15.05.2026, the Appellant was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years and to pay a fine of ₹2,000/-, and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further simple imprisonment for a period of one month.

The relevant extracts of the impugned judgment dated 16.04.2026 are reproduced hereinbelow:

The relevant extracts of the impugned order of sentence dated 15.05.2026 are reproduced hereinbelow:

Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment of conviction and order on sentence, the Appellant preferred the present appeal before this Court.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that there are serious contradictions with regard to the date as well as the place of the alleged incident. It is submitted that the prosecutrix, in some part of her evidence, stated that the incident took place in June 2016, whereas in other parts, she stated that it occurred in July 2016. It is contended that neither the specific date nor the month, and to some extent even the year or the number of alleged incidents, has been consistently stated, thereby causing prejudice to the appellant in properly defending himself. Learned counsel further submits that the prosecutrix stated that the alleged incident took place in the library, whereas the site plan prepared during investigation depicts the place of incident as the Staff Room. It is submitted that the Trial Court has convicted the appellant almost entirely on the testimony of the prosecutrix and, in the absence of independent corroboration, once such testimony is rendered doubtful, the conviction cannot be sustained.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the material witnesses did not support the case of the prosecution. It is contended that PW-4, who was the friend of the prosecutrix, and PW-5, who was her mother, were expected to support the prosecution case but both the witnesses turned hostile.

Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the investigation conducted in the present case was deficient. It is submitted that the Investigating Officer neither seized the attendance records nor collected the relevant school records, and also failed to examine the other teachers or school staff who might have been present at the relevant time. It is contended that these omissions on the part of the Investigating Officer create material gaps in the prosecution case.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Trial Court has wrongly invoked the presumption under Section 29 of the POCSO Act. It is contended that the presumption under Section 29 can arise only after the prosecution has first established the foundational facts constituting the offence. Learned counsel submits that the Trial Court applied the said presumption at an early stage without first establishing the foundational facts beyond reasonable doubt. It is further submitted that the sole testimony of the prosecutrix, PW-1, is not of such sterling quality as can be safely relied upon without corroboration, as the same is inconsistent, contains contradictions and is not free from prevarication. Learned counsel places reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Rai Sandeep alias Deepu v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2012) 8 SCC 21 (2012) 8 SCC 21, and submits that the testimony of a sterling witness must remain intact on the core spectrum of the crime and should find support from the attendant oral, documentary and material evidence.

Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the appellant is 65 years of age and is suffering from various ailments associated with old age. It is submitted that he is a heart patient and has two stents inserted in his heart. Learned counsel further submits that the appellant underwent a kidney operation in July 2025 and is also suffering from diabetes, spinal disease and partial functioning of his left arm. It is contended that the aforesaid medical and age-related circumstances also deserve to be taken into consideration.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that there are material contradictions between the testimony of the prosecutrix, PW-1, and her sister, PW-6. It is submitted that PW-1 deposed that, after the alleged incident, she went to her class teacher, obtained permission to go home and thereafter went home, whereas PW-6 stated in her deposition that they returned to their house. Learned counsel further submits that the prosecutrix had never stated that she had spoken to her sister about the alleged incident at school or that she had returned home along with her sister. It is further contended that, in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., the prosecutrix stated that she had first disclosed the alleged sexual assault, allegedly committed by the appellant/convict in June 2016, to her mother at home, whereas PW-6 deposed that the incident was disclosed to her father. It is submitted that these contradictions materially affect the credibility of the prosecution case.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the class teacher from whom the prosecutrix allegedly obtained permission to leave the school early on the alleged date of incident, stated to be in the last week of June/July, has not been examined by the prosecution. It is contended that the said teacher was a material witness and her non-examination deprives the prosecution of material corroboration of the version of the prosecutrix.

Learned APP for the State, appearing on behalf of the Respondent, submits that the impugned judgment of conviction and order on sentence are well-reasoned and based on a proper appreciation of the evidence led before the learned Trial Court. It is submitted that the learned Trial Court has considered all the material aspects of the case and has rightly appreciated the testimony of the prosecutrix as well as the corroborative evidence available on record.

Learned APP further submits that there is nothing on record which would discredit or impeach the testimony of the prosecutrix. It is contended that the testimony of PW-1 has remained consistent on the material particulars and inspires confidence. The minor discrepancies sought to be highlighted by the Appellant relate only to peripheral aspects and do not affect the core of the prosecution case.

It is further submitted that the testimony of the prosecutrix finds corroboration from the testimony of PW-6, her elder sister, and PW-7, her father, particularly with regard to the disclosure of the incident and the subsequent events. Learned APP submits that the fact that certain witnesses did not fully support the prosecution case does not render the testimony of the prosecutrix unreliable, particularly when her evidence has withstood cross-examination and no material contradiction has been elicited.

Learned APP contends that the learned Trial Court has rightly dealt with the alleged discrepancies concerning the date and place of occurrence and has correctly held them to be minor and inconsequential. It is submitted that the absence of an exact date or minor variations regarding the sequence of events cannot outweigh the consistent and cogent account given by the child victim regarding the acts committed by the Appellant.

Learned APP further submits that the prosecution had established the foundational facts necessary for attracting the statutory presumption under Section 29 of the POCSO Act. Once the testimony of the prosecutrix and the surrounding corroborative circumstances established such foundational facts, the statutory presumption operated against the Appellant. It is submitted that the Appellant failed to rebut the said presumption or otherwise create any reasonable doubt in the prosecution case.

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the material on record.

At the outset, it is required to be noted that the learned Trial Court has not proceeded on the basis of the testimony of the prosecutrix in isolation or by mechanically invoking the statutory presumption under the POCSO Act. The learned Trial Court has first examined the foundational facts, including the age of the prosecutrix, the nature of the allegations, the testimony of the prosecutrix and the corroborative evidence brought on record, and has thereafter applied the statutory presumption. Such an approach is consistent with the scheme of Section 29 of the POCSO Act, under which the prosecution is required to establish the foundational facts before the statutory presumption can operate. The presumption, once attracted, remains rebuttable by the accused. The Supreme Court has also reiterated that where the testimony of the child victim is found to be credible and trustworthy, it can constitute the foundational evidence for attracting the statutory presumption.

The principal challenge raised by learned counsel for the Appellant is to the credibility of PW-1, the prosecutrix. Having carefully examined her testimony, this Court finds no reason to take a view different from that taken by the learned Trial Court. The prosecutrix has consistently attributed specific acts of inappropriate physical contact to the Appellant within the school premises. She deposed that the Appellant called her on the pretext of giving her a pen, took her into a room, made her sit and thereafter touched her inappropriately, including on her back and posterior region. She further stated that when she attempted to resist, the Appellant held her hand and did not immediately permit her to leave, whereafter she managed to escape by pushing him. The relevant portion of the testimony of PW-1, wherein she has specifically deposed about the acts attributed to the Appellant, is reproduced hereinbelow:

Nothing has been brought to the notice of this Court which would materially impeach the testimony of the prosecutrix. The defence has been unable to elicit, in the course of her cross-examination, any contradiction going to the root of the prosecution case. The fact that there are variations in the narration regarding peripheral details, such as the precise date or sequence of events, cannot by itself render the testimony unreliable, particularly when the core allegation against the Appellant has remained intact. The learned Trial Court has considered these discrepancies and has rightly found them to be minor in nature. This Court finds no reason to take a different view.

On an overall appreciation of the evidence, this Court finds that the testimony of the prosecutrix is consistent on the material particulars and inspires confidence. Her version is not only supported by the circumstances in which she disclosed the incident to her family, but also finds corroboration from the testimony of her elder sister, PW-6, who deposed regarding the disclosure made by the prosecutrix and the subsequent complaint made to the Principal against the Appellant. PW-6 further deposed about the conduct of the Appellant towards the prosecutrix and the subsequent response of the co-accused. Thus, the testimony of PW-1 does not stand in isolation, but receives assurance from the testimony of PW-6 and the surrounding circumstances. The discrepancies pointed out by the Appellant relate to peripheral aspects and do not touch upon the core of the prosecution case. The relevant extract from the testimony of PW-6 is reproduced hereinbelow:

The contention regarding the discrepancy in the description of the place of occurrence, namely, whether it was the library or the staff room, also does not persuade this Court. The alleged occurrence is consistently placed within the school premises and there is no ambiguity regarding the identity of the Appellant or the nature of the acts attributed to him. Such variation, particularly when viewed in the context of the age of the prosecutrix and the passage of time between the occurrence and her deposition, cannot be elevated to a material contradiction so as to discard the otherwise credible testimony of the victim.

On an overall appreciation of the evidence, this Court finds that the testimony of the prosecutrix is consistent on the material particulars and inspires confidence. Nothing substantial has emerged in her cross-examination which would render her testimony unworthy of reliance. The corroborative evidence of PW-6 and PW-7 lends further assurance to her version. The discrepancies pointed out by the Appellant relate to peripheral aspects and do not touch upon the core of the prosecution case.

The reliance placed by learned counsel for the Appellant on Rai Sandeep alias Deepu v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2012) 8 SCC 21, is also of no assistance. The principle laid down therein regarding the standard of a ‘sterling witness’ has to be applied on the facts of each case. In the present case, the testimony of PW-1 does not suffer from the kind of material inconsistencies or prevarication which would render it wholly unsafe to rely upon. On the contrary, the learned Trial Court, after examining her testimony in the context of the complaint, her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and her deposition before the Court, found the core version to have remained intact. This Court finds no reason to interfere with that assessment.

The law is well settled that the testimony of the prosecutrix, if found to be reliable, cogent and trustworthy, can by itself form the basis of conviction and there is no requirement of corroboration as a matter of law. The Supreme Court in State (NCT of Delhi) v. Pankaj Chaudhary, (2019) 11 SCC 575, has held as under:

Before parting with the matter, this Court considers it necessary to record its serious concern over the circumstances brought on record. A child ordinarily reposes trust and confidence in a teacher. Such trust is sacred to the teacher-student relationship and carries with it a corresponding duty to protect the child, rather than to abuse or breach the trust so reposed. The abuse of such position, particularly against a young girl of an age comparable to that of the teacher’s own daughter, is a matter of grave concern and cannot be treated as a mere breach of discipline or propriety.

The conduct attributed to the co-accused, who, despite being the Principal of the school, is stated to have told the child that such matters should not be disclosed to her parents, is equally disturbing. A child who complains of such conduct ought not to be made to feel that she has done something wrong by speaking about it. The Court is of the view that educational institutions must, instead, ensure that children are made aware of their rights and are encouraged to speak about any conduct which causes them fear, discomfort or insecurity. The school environment must inspire sufficient confidence in children, both girls and boys, to come forward and place their concerns before the persons entrusted with their care.

In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court finds no merit in the present appeal. The judgment of conviction dated 16.04.2026 and the order on sentence dated 15.05.2026 passed by the learned ASJ/Special Judge (POCSO), Shahdara, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi, are hereby affirmed.

Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.

Copy of this judgment be sent to the concerned learned Trial Court for necessary information and compliance.