Delhi HC Upholds Conviction in 2016 Assault of 11-Year-Old Boy, Reduces Jail Term to 10 Years

The Delhi High Court has upheld the conviction of a man for sexually assaulting an 11-year-old homeless boy in 2016, while reducing his jail term from 20 years to 10 years. The court ruled that the longer sentence was not applicable because the offence occurred before the law was amended to mandate a minimum 20-year prison term.

Justice Chandrasekharan Sudha, in a judgment passed on August 10, confirmed the trial court's decision to convict the man under Section 377 (unnatural offences) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, which deals with aggravated penetrative sexual assault. However, the High Court modified the sentence, noting that at the time of the incident, the corresponding punishment for the offence was a minimum of 10 years.

The POCSO Act was amended on August 16, 2019, making the minimum sentence for aggravated penetrative sexual assault 20 years. Since the crime took place in November 2016, the court determined that the earlier, more lenient provision should apply.

The case came to light after the minor boy, then 11 years old, told social workers that he had been assaulted while sleeping under a railway bridge in Kashmere Gate, Delhi. The social workers, who were organising a free medical camp for the homeless in the area, reported the matter to the police helpline.

During the trial, the accused's counsel argued that his client had been falsely implicated. The defence claimed that the prosecution failed to prove the boy's age was under 12, and pointed to inconsistencies in his testimony about the incident and the clothes he was wearing.

The High Court dismissed these arguments, stating that the boy's inability to state his exact age or date of birth was not surprising given his social background. “It is unrealistic to expect a homeless child to know his precise age,” the court observed.

The court referred to school records that listed the boy's date of birth as October 12, 2005, which made him 11 years old at the time of the assault. It also held that the absence of external injuries did not discredit the survivor's testimony, which it described as “consistent and trustworthy.”

The judgment reinforces the legal principle that minor inconsistencies in a child witness's account, especially a vulnerable child from a marginalised background, do not necessarily undermine the credibility of the prosecution's case. The court's decision to reduce the sentence was based solely on the legal framework in force at the time of the offence, not on any doubt about the accused's guilt.

The survivor, who was homeless, has since been provided with support and rehabilitation, according to reports. The case highlights the continued need for protection of vulnerable children and the importance of swift and thorough legal proceedings in cases of child sexual abuse.