Introduction

In X v. State (NCTD) and Anr. (2025 DHC 7371), the Delhi High Court (per Manoj Kumar Ohri, J.) dismissed an appeal against conviction in a child sexual assault case where the minor victim (aged about 9 years) and her mother turned hostile during trial. The core legal issues were: (i) whether a conviction can be sustained under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO), and allied IPC provisions, when the victim resiles from earlier incriminating statements; (ii) how the presumption under Section 29 of POCSO operates; (iii) the evidentiary value of DNA (FSL) results when the victim does not identify seized clothing; and (iv) whether delay in forwarding samples to the Forensic Science Laboratory vitiates the prosecution case absent proof of tampering.

The case pits a father (appellant) against the State and the child’s class teacher (Respondent No. 2 was represented), with the prosecution relying heavily on scientific and medical evidence, as well as the teacher’s testimony as the “first recipient” of the child’s disclosure following a “good touch–bad touch” awareness program.

• Court: Delhi High Court
• Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri
• Date: 26 August 2025 (Reserved: 24 July 2024)
• Case No.: CRL.A. 664/2024 (with CRL. M(B) 1255/2024)
• Offences: Sections 376(2)(f) & (n), 377 IPC; Section 6 POCSO
• Sentence: RI 10 years under Section 6 POCSO + fine; Section 428 CrPC set-off granted

Summary of the Judgment

The High Court upheld the conviction and sentence awarded by the Trial Court for aggravated penetrative sexual assault under POCSO and related IPC offences. Although the child and her mother turned hostile at trial, the Court relied on:

• the child’s prompt complaint to her class teacher (PW-5),
• the detailed statement under Section 164 CrPC before the Magistrate,
• the contemporaneous Medical Legal Certificate (MLC) noting genital and anal findings consistent with recent sexual assault, and
• the FSL DNA report showing the appellant’s DNA profile on the child’s rectal swab/smear (and underwear).

Holding that the prosecution had proved the “foundational facts,” the Court applied Section 29 of POCSO to presume guilt, which the appellant failed to rebut. It further held that:

• hostility of key prosecution witnesses does not erase their evidence in toto;
• failure of the child to identify her underwear does not neutralize the incriminating rectal swab DNA match with the appellant;
• alleged delay in sending samples to FSL is inconsequential in the absence of tampering.

The appeal was dismissed; conviction and sentence were affirmed.

Key Holdings and Rules Emerging

• Once the prosecution proves foundational facts (through prompt disclosure, Section 164 CrPC statement, MLC, and FSL), the statutory presumption of guilt under Section 29 POCSO is triggered, shifting the burden to the accused to rebut it.
• A hostile victim (and/or mother) does not ipso facto defeat the prosecution; courts may rely on reliable portions of their evidence and other corroborative material (MLC, DNA, first disclosure witness).
• Identification of seized clothing by the victim is not indispensable if other scientific evidence (e.g., DNA from body swabs) independently incriminates the accused.
• Delay in forwarding samples to FSL is not fatal where seals remain intact, no tampering is alleged or proven, and chain of custody is established.
• Testimony of a teacher who first receives the child’s spontaneous disclosure during a school awareness drive is significant and can be relied upon when unimpeached in cross-examination.

Analysis

Precedents Cited and Their Influence

The Court’s approach to hostile witnesses and the Section 29 presumption is grounded in two doctrinal strands.

1. Hostile witnesses are not to be discarded wholesale:
   • Selvamani v. State Rep. by the Inspector of Police, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 837 (relying on a line of Supreme Court authorities including C. Muniappan, Ramesh Prasad Misra, Balu Sonba Shinde, Gagan Kanojia, Radha Mohan Singh, Sarvesh Narain Shukla, Subbu Singh, Sohrab, M.K. Anthony, Bharwada Bhoginbhai, Om Prakash, Prithu, Santosh Kumar, and Saravanan), reiterates that the testimony of a hostile witness is not “effaced” from the record; it can be accepted to the extent it is dependable on careful scrutiny.
   • This principle directly informed the Court’s readiness to consider earlier statements (complaint and Section 164 CrPC) and corroborating scientific/medical evidence, notwithstanding the victim’s and mother’s subsequent recantation.
2. Section 29 POCSO: Presumption triggered upon foundational facts:
   • Sambhubhai Raisangbhai Padhiyar v. State of Gujarat, (2025) 2 SCC 399: The Supreme Court clarified that Section 29’s presumption of guilt under POCSO operates only after the prosecution establishes the foundational facts.
   • Veerpal v. State, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 2686: This High Court decision refined the burden framework—prosecution must first prove foundational facts beyond reasonable doubt; thereafter, the accused may rebut the presumption by showing improbabilities or gaps on a preponderance of probabilities.
   • In the present case, these authorities anchored the Court’s application of Section 29 after finding that the prompt complaint, Section 164 statement, MLC injuries, DNA match, and credible teacher’s testimony satisfied the requisite threshold.

Legal Reasoning: How the Court Reached Its Conclusion

1. Age and relationship established: The victim was approximately 9 years old (proved by school records and mother’s testimony), and the appellant was her biological father. Age was not disputed—a foundational fact for POCSO.
2. Initial disclosure and Section 164 CrPC statement: The child’s spontaneous disclosure to her class teacher (PW-5) following a “good touch–bad touch” program, and her detailed Section 164 CrPC statement, provided early, specific, and consistent accounts of repeated sexual assaults, including vaginal and anal penetration.
3. Medical evidence contemporaneous with the complaint: The MLC recorded (on the same date as the FIR) findings of vaginal mucosal redness (1–2 days), torn hymen with a 1×1 cm posterior hole, and minimally decreased anal sphincter strength—injuries medically coherent with the alleged penetrative sexual assault (including anal). The MLC also captured the history consistent with repeated assault, including an episode on the day prior to examination.
4. Forensic DNA evidence: The Senior Scientific Officer (PW-14) deposed that DNA profiles generated from the child’s rectal swab and smear and from her underwear matched the DNA profile generated from the appellant’s blood sample. This scientific corroboration significantly strengthened the prosecution case and connected the accused to the assault mechanically and forensically.
5. Handling the victim’s and mother’s hostility:
   • The child and her mother later resiled, attributing the case to an alleged grudge of the teacher over financial grants. The Court scrutinized this line of defense: PW-5 denied such quarrels; importantly, the alleged timeline clashed with school vacation months; and no such suggestion was put to the principal (PW-1). The defense thus failed to discredit PW-5 or to present a plausible alternative narrative.
   • Applying the hostile-witness jurisprudence, the Court declined to “wash off” their earlier accounts, particularly where medical and forensic evidence corroborated those earlier statements.
6. Underwear identification and “bath/change of clothes” argument:
   • The victim did not identify the seized underwear at trial, and the defense argued she had bathed and changed clothes before the MLC. The Court noted the MLC did not state that all garments (including underwear) were changed and that, in any event, the incident allegedly recurred daily, including the immediately preceding night.
   • Crucially, even if underwear were disregarded, the incriminating rectal swab/smear DNA match remained untouched—and the appellant offered no explanation for this.
7. Delay in sending samples to FSL:
   • The defense highlighted delay. The Investigating Officer (PW-15) and other relevant witnesses testified to proper deposit and sealed condition; the FSL confirmed receipt with seals intact. No suggestion or proof of tampering was made. The Court held that, in such circumstances, mere delay does not undermine the integrity of the samples.
8. Triggering and applying Section 29 POCSO:
   • Given the above, the Court held that the prosecution had proved the foundational facts. The Section 29 presumption thus attached, requiring the accused to rebut by showing improbability or gaps on a preponderance of probabilities. He did not.
   • The defense narrative (alleged grudge over grants) was unsupported and contradicted by the record; it could not unsettle the coherent fabric of medical, forensic, and first-disclosure evidence.
9. Outcome: The conviction under Section 6 POCSO (and related IPC provisions) and the sentence of 10 years RI were affirmed, with Section 428 CrPC set-off of pre-trial detention.

Impact: Doctrinal and Practical Significance

• Recalibrating how courts evaluate recantation in child sexual assault: The decision underscores that recantation—often arising from familial pressure or dependency—cannot eclipse a well-corroborated prosecution case. Courts will focus on early statements, medical findings, and scientific evidence to assess the truth.
• Section 29 POCSO strengthened with a clear evidentiary roadmap: Foundational facts can be proved via a combination of a child’s prompt disclosure, a properly recorded Section 164 CrPC statement, immediate MLC indicating recent assault, and DNA linkage. Once established, the burden reverses, and speculative defenses are inadequate.
• Scientific evidence as an anchor: The judgment elevates the probative value of body-swab DNA in sexual offences involving minors. Even where identification of clothing is contested, a body-swab DNA match can independently sustain conviction.
• Chain-of-custody clarity: The Court signals that delays in sending samples to FSL will not per se vitiate the case if seals are intact, tampering is neither alleged nor shown, and the malkhana/FSL record supports integrity—guidance that will shape investigative and trial practices.
• Teachers as critical first-responders: The judgment validates the evidentiary role of teachers who receive disclosures emerging from school awareness initiatives. It may encourage stronger institutional protocols for receiving and reporting such disclosures.
• Sentencing under POCSO: Affirmation of sentence under Section 6 for acts pre-dating amendments reflects the special law’s primacy in penal consequences in CSA cases.

Complex Concepts Simplified

• Hostile witness: A witness who departs from a prior statement supporting the party that called them. Their testimony is not discarded wholesale; courts may accept parts found reliable after careful scrutiny, especially when corroborated.
• Section 29 POCSO (Presumption of guilt): Once the prosecution proves foundational facts (i.e., a credible basis that the offence occurred and the accused’s involvement), the court presumes the accused committed the offence. The accused must then rebut this presumption by raising a probable defense—he does not have to prove innocence beyond reasonable doubt, but must create reasonable doubt or demonstrate improbabilities on a preponderance of probabilities.
• Foundational facts: The basic facts that activate a statutory presumption—here, including proof of the victim’s age, credible early disclosure, medical signs consistent with the assault, and forensic (DNA) linkage to the accused.
• Section 164 CrPC statement: A statement recorded by a Magistrate, often soon after the complaint, which is considered reliable because it is recorded under judicial oversight.
• MLC (Medical Legal Certificate): A medico-legal document capturing the patient’s history and clinical findings. In sexual offences, timely MLCs may reveal findings consistent with recent penetration (e.g., mucosal redness, hymenal injury, anal sphincter tone changes).
• DNA (STR) analysis: Short Tandem Repeat profiling compares DNA from crime-scene samples (e.g., swabs, clothing) with a reference sample (blood). A match links the biological material on the exhibit to the individual providing the reference sample (here, the appellant).
• Chain of custody: The documented, unbroken trail of collection, sealing, storage, and transfer of evidence. If seals are intact and no tampering is alleged or proved, delays in dispatch typically do not destroy evidentiary value.
• Section 428 CrPC: Allows the period of pre-trial detention undergone by a convict to be set off against the sentence imposed.

Practical Takeaways for Stakeholders

• Investigators: Prioritize immediate medical examination and proper sealing of exhibits; maintain meticulous malkhana records; document chain of custody to insulate against delay-based challenges.
• Prosecutors: Lead with early statements and MLC; foreground DNA from body swabs; anticipate and counter recantation with corroboration and Section 29 presumption; dismantle motive-to-fabricate defenses with cross-examination and collateral records.
• Defense: Mere speculation (e.g., alleged personal grudges) is insufficient to rebut Section 29 once foundational facts are robust; effective rebuttal demands cogent alternative hypotheses or credible attacks on chain of custody, sample integrity, or forensic methodology.
• Courts: Assess the dynamics of familial pressure/tutoring in recantations; apply hostile-witness principles; articulate clearly when Section 29 is triggered and how the accused fails (or succeeds) in rebuttal.
• Schools and Child-Protection Systems: The case validates the importance of awareness programs and places teachers as trusted first-responders; ensure protocols for immediate reporting and support are in place.

Conclusion

X v. State (NCTD) and Anr. is a robust reaffirmation that in POCSO prosecutions, the integrity and weight of scientific and medical evidence, coupled with prompt disclosures and judicially recorded statements, can decisively establish foundational facts. Once those facts are in place, Section 29’s presumption of guilt applies, and a conviction may be sustained notwithstanding a hostile victim or familial witnesses—especially where hostility is plausibly explained by post-incident influence and where the defense fails to offer a plausible, evidence-backed alternative.

Equally important is the Court’s pragmatic approach to common defense challenges: failure to identify seized garments is not fatal where body-swab DNA suffices; and delay in FSL dispatch does not upend a case absent proof of tampering and with seals intact. The judgment therefore provides a clear doctrinal and operational template for future child sexual assault cases—reinforcing that truth can be reconstructed and adjudicated reliably even when witness dynamics become fraught at trial.