Delhi HC acquits man convicted of sexually assaulting minor

The Delhi High Court has set aside the conviction and 20-year prison sentence of a man accused of sexually assaulting a minor girl, holding that material contradictions in the testimonies of the victim and her mother created reasonable doubt about the prosecution’s case.

Justice Madhu Jain allowed the appeal filed by the accused, who had been convicted by a trial court in November 2025 under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act and various provisions of the Indian Penal Code.

The High Court, in its September 30 judgment, directed that the man be released from jail forthwith if he was not required in any other case.

The case arose from a complaint registered at Burari police station in Delhi in March 2022. According to the prosecution, the victim, who was around 10 years old at the time, alleged that the accused, her neighbour, sexually assaulted her on March 12 and 13, 2022.

The prosecution’s case was that the incident came to light after the girl’s mother found her missing in the intervening night of March 19 and began searching for her. The accused allegedly brought the girl out of his room when her family raised an alarm. The girl was subsequently medically examined, and a case was registered.

Appearing for the accused, advocate Swati Verma argued that the prosecution’s case was riddled with material inconsistencies and that the victim’s testimony differed significantly from her earlier statements to the police and a magistrate. She submitted that while the earlier accounts referred to alleged sexual assaults on two consecutive days, the victim did not specify the dates or describe multiple incidents in her examination before the trial court.

The trial court had relied on the victim’s testimony and the accounts given by her mother and maternal uncle. It had sentenced the accused to 20 years of rigorous imprisonment.

The High Court concluded that the evidence, considered as a whole, raised reasonable doubt about the prosecution’s case.

“The material contradictions in the testimonies of the prosecutrix and her mother, particularly with regard to material particulars of the alleged incident, further create doubt regarding the prosecution case. It is also pertinent to note that there is no medical evidence corroborating the alleged incident,” the High Court said.

It held that the material contradictions in the testimonies of the victim and her mother, particularly concerning important details of the alleged incident, undermined the case against the accused.