NETRAM KUMAR Vs THE STATE OF NCT OF DELHI

CRL.A. 573/2026 Page 1 of 17

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Reserved on: 29.07.2026

Date of Decision: 12.08.2026

Uploaded on: 12.08.2026

+ CRL.A. 573/2026 & CRL.M.(BAIL) 1165/2026

NETRAM KUMAR .....Appellant

Through: Mr. S.K. Raghuvanshi and Mr A. Deb

Kumar, Advs.

versus

THE STATE OF NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent

Through: Mr. Digam Singh Dagar, APP

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MADHU JAIN

JUDGMENT

MADHU JAIN, J.

1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

2. 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/-.

CRL.A. 573/2026 Page 2 of 17

FACTUAL MATRIX

3. 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.

4. 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.

5. 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.

6. 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

CRL.A. 573/2026 Page 3 of 17

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.

7. 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.

8. 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

CRL.A. 573/2026 Page 4 of 17

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.

9. The relevant extracts of the impugned judgment dated 16.04.2026 are

reproduced hereinbelow:

“98. From the evidence discussed above, it stands

established that the victim was a minor child below

the age prescribed under the relevant provisions of

law. The accused admitted the birth certificate of the

victim in his statement u/s 294 Cr.P.C.

99. From the evidence on record, it stands

established that accused Netram engaged in

inappropriate physical conduct with the minor

victim within the school premises. His conduct, as

described by the victim, clearly falls within the

ambit of sexual assault as defined under section 9 of

the POCSO Act. The prosecution has proved that

the accused Netram on the next day of 28.02.2015

during school time at school (name withheld while

the victim (name withheld), aged about 12 years,

was distributing toffee on the occasion of her 12th

birthday, he held her hand with sexual intent and

also in the last week of July, 2016 during school time

in the staff room of the school, he misbehaved the

above-said minor child victim (name withheld) and

touched her body till the posterior, he also touched

her breast and made physical contact and advances

involving unwelcome and explicit sexual overtures

and assaulted or used criminal force to the minor

child victim, with intending to outrage or knowing it

to be likely that he will thereby outrage her modesty.

Further, he committed aggravated sexual assault

upon the above said minor female child victim

(name withheld) aged about 12 years in the above-

said manner with sexual intent. The testimony of the

CRL.A. 573/2026 Page 5 of 17

victim, corroborated by other witnesses, establishes

his culpability beyond reasonable doubt. The

defence has failed to discredit this evidence.

Therefore, the prosecution has successfully

established the essential elements of the offence

beyond reasonable doubts. Thus, the ingredients of

Section 354/354-A IPC and Section 10 of the

POCSO Act stand proved.

100. The role of accused Asha Kumari is also

clearly established. The prosecution has also

proved the allegations against the accused Asha

Kumari that on the next day of 28.02.2015 during

school time at the school (name withheld) and in the

last week of July, 2016 during school time at the

school, her co-accused Netram had committed

aggravated sexual assault upon the victim child

(name withheld), aged about 12 years, who was

studying in her school and on the next day father of

the victim informed her but she being the Principal

and in-charge of the school did not take any action

and failed to report the commission of offence. It has

come on record that she was informed about the

incident but failed to take appropriate action.

Instead, she discouraged the complainant and

created an atmosphere of fear. Being in a position

of authority, she was under a legal obligation to act

upon such information. Her failure to do so attracts

liability under section 21 (2) of the POCSO Act.

Therefore, the prosecution has successfully

established the essential elements of the offence

beyond reasonable doubts. Thus, the ingredient of

Section 21(2) of the POCSO Act stands proved.

CONCLUSION

101. In view of the above detailed discussion,

accused Netram stands convicted for the offences

punishable u/s 354/354-A IPC and Section 10 of

the POCSO Act and accused Asha Kumari stands

CRL.A. 573/2026 Page 6 of 17

convicted for the offence punishable u/s 21(2) of

the POCSO Act, for which they were charged.”

10. The relevant extracts of the impugned order of sentence dated

15.05.2026 are reproduced hereinbelow:

14. In the present case, the convict Netram Kumar

is liable to be sentenced for offence u/s 10 of the

POCSO Act instead of section 354/354-A IPC.

15. Therefore, considering the overall facts and

circumstances, for the offence punishable u/s 10 of

the POCSO Act, convict Netram Kumar is

sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a

period of 05 years and pay fine of Rs.2,000/- and in

default of payment of fine, further simple

imprisonment for a period of one month.

16. As per the report of the Jail Superintendent,

convict Netram Kumar has undergone total custody

period of 19 days i.e., from 12.08.2016 to

26.08.2016 (15 days) and from 16.04.2026 to

19.04.2026 (04 days). Therefore, the benefit of

section 428 Cr.P.C. is given to the convict Netram

Kumar and the period of detention already

undergone by him till date be set off against the

sentence.

17. Fine not paid.

Xxx

28. Considering the totality of facts and

circumstances and for the ends of justice, final

compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lacs

Only) is awarded to victim U/s 33 (8) of POCSO

Act read with Rule 9 of POCSO Rules, 2020 &

Section 357A CrPC for the loss, trauma and mental

injury suffered by the victim as a consequence of the

present offence.

29. Considering the facts and circumstances of the

case and very poor financial condition of the

convict, it is directed that the entire compensation

amount of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lacs only)

shall be paid by DLSA (Shandara), Karkardoorna,

CRL.A. 573/2026 Page 7 of 17

Delhi to the victim. Ld. Secretary, DLSA, Shandara

is directed to disburse the said amount to the victim

in accordance with Delhi Victim Compensation

Scheme, 201.

11. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment of conviction and order on

sentence, the Appellant preferred the present appeal before this Court.

SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT

12. 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.

13. 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.

14. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the investigation

conducted in the present case was deficient. It is submitted that the

CRL.A. 573/2026 Page 8 of 17

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.

15. 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.

16. 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.

CRL.A. 573/2026 Page 9 of 17

17. 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.

18. 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.

SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

19. 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

CRL.A. 573/2026 Page 10 of 17

testimony of the prosecutrix as well as the corroborative evidence available

on record.

20. 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.

21. 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.

22. 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.

23. 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

CRL.A. 573/2026 Page 11 of 17

the Appellant failed to rebut the said presumption or otherwise create any

reasonable doubt in the prosecution case.

ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS

24. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone

through the material on record.

25. 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.

26. 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

CRL.A. 573/2026 Page 12 of 17

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:

“At the time of incident I was studying in 7th E-class.

In the month of July, 2016, however, I do not

remember the exact date, on that day at about 8:00

AM, I was going to class of my elder sister to get a

pen. When I reached near stairs, Netram Sir met me

there, he asked me where I was going, I told him that

I was going to get a pen from my elder sister. On

which, Netram told me that he is having a pen and

he asked to come with him for taking a pen. Then,

Netram took me inside the library room on the

pretext of giving a pen. He got me seated on a chair

and thereafter he started touching/moving his hands

on my back portion of body, while moving hand on

my back portion, accused touched me posterior

portion of body in backside.

He did not give any pen to me. I asked to leave telling

him to take a pen from my elder sister. Accused was

not leaving me despite my request as he was catching

me by holding my hand. I pushed accused Netram

and came from that room and reached to my class

teacher and got permission from her for going to

home. Thereafter I left my school and went to home.

I told incident to my mother and my mother further

told incident to my father. Thereafter my father

talked with Principal of the school in this respect.

School Principal assured my father that no such

incident will be repeated in future.

I kept continue to go to school. Thereafter one day

when I was present at school, Principal Madam

called me her office and asked me by saying “Choti-

Choti Baten Ghar Par Nahi Batate”. I told

CRL.A. 573/2026 Page 13 of 17

aforesaid fact to my father. Thereafter I along with

my father went to PS, where police made enquire

from me and recorded my statement. I handed over

written complaint to the police.

In the school, Netram Sir misbehaved with me on

three occasions first time moulded my hand when I

was distributing toffee in the school, on the account

of my birthday, year I do not remember. Again said

it is on 28.02.2016. Second incident committed by

accused, I do not remember today.”

27. 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.

28. 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.

CRL.A. 573/2026 Page 14 of 17

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:

“On SA

Due to fear of accused Asha Kumar, the then

Principal of my school, I had told my wrong name

to the IO to be “S” though my actual name is “A”.

“S” is name of my real sister who was studying in

10th Class and at that time I was studying in 9th

Class in the same school, Nand Nagri (particular

withheld). IO/Insp. Ina Kumari, who is present in

the Court today has also submitted that this witness

had told her name to be “S” and due to the said

wrong information, her statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C.

was recorded in the name of “S” and not in her

name.

My younger sister “B” was also studying in the

same school in 6th class in the year 2016. One day

in the school, she told me that the accused Netram

had called her to staff room and tried to do

“Chedchaad”. She told me that in the staff room, he

touched her on the front side as well as on her back

side. We returned to our house and told about it to

our father. On the next day, I alongwith my father

and my victim sister went to school and met the

Principal of the school i.e. accused Asha Kumar. My

father orally complaint about the said conduct of the

accused Netram to accused Asha Kumar. She

assured that she would make him understand and he

will not repeat this mistake.

However, next day, when we went to school, the

accused Netram was staring my victim sister “B” in

my presence. He further said to us that nothing

happened on your complaint to the Principal.

Because of his said conduct, we got scared.

CRL.A. 573/2026 Page 15 of 17

Thereafter, we went to the Principal (accused Asha

Kumar) for again complaining against the accused

Netram. On our complaint, she threatened us if we

make complaint against him afresh, she would

remove us from the school and will fail us. We

returned home and told about it to our father.

Thereafter, my victim sister “B” made a complaint

against the accused persons in the Police Station.”

29. 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.

30. 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.

31. 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

CRL.A. 573/2026 Page 16 of 17

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.

32. 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:

“24. It is now well-settled principle of law that

conviction can be sustained on the sole testimony of

the prosecutrix if it inspires confidence. [Vishnu

alias Undrya v. State of Maharashtra, (2006) 1 SCC

283]. It is well-settled by a catena of decisions of

this Court that there is no rule of law or practice

that the evidence of the prosecutrix cannot be relied

upon without corroboration and as such it has been

laid down that corroboration is not a sine qua non

for conviction in a rape case. If the evidence of the

victim does not suffer from any basic infirmity and

the probability factor does not render it unworthy of

credence, as a general rule, there is no reason to

insist on corroboration except from medical

evidence, where, having regard to the

circumstances of the case, medical evidence can be

expected to be forthcoming. [State v. N.K., (2000) 5

SCC 30].”

33. 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

CRL.A. 573/2026 Page 17 of 17

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.

34. 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.

CONCLUSION

35. 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.

36. Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed. Pending application(s), if

any, also stand disposed of.

37. Copy of this judgment be sent to the concerned learned Trial Court for

necessary information and compliance.

MADHU JAIN

(JUDGE)

AUGUST 12, 2026/rm