This judgment decides only the appeal against the conviction and sentence in Sessions Case No. 141 of 2019. It does not decide any other case, and the reduction of sentence does not affect the compensation awarded to the child victim. The child victim is not identified in this article.
- Case
- Dilip Kumar @ Tinu v. State (NCT of Delhi)
- Court
- High Court of Delhi
- Decision
- Citation
- 2026:DHC:9965
- Bench
- Madhu Jain
- Judgment by
- Madhu Jain
- Case numbers
- CRL.A. 699/2024
- Outcome
- Criminal appeal partly allowed: the judgment of conviction dated 30 November 2023 is affirmed; the order on sentence dated 6 March 2024 is modified to reduce rigorous imprisonment under section 6 of the POCSO Act from 25 years to 10 years.
The decision
The Delhi High Court has affirmed the conviction of Dilip Kumar for aggravated penetrative sexual assault on a child, but reduced his sentence of rigorous imprisonment under section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, from 25 years to 10 years. Justice Madhu Jain, on 6 November 2026, held that the offences took place in February 2019, before the 2019 amendment that raised the minimum sentence under section 6 from 10 years to 20 years, and that the amended minimum could not be applied retrospectively.
The Court found the 25-year sentence within the range prescribed by the unamended provision, which ran from 10 years to imprisonment for life. But weighing the circumstances on the touchstone of proportionality, it held that 10 years' rigorous imprisonment would adequately meet the ends of justice. The fine, the sentence for criminal intimidation, and the compensation of Rs 7,50,000 awarded to the child victim were left unchanged.
Background: the prosecution case and the trial
The case arose from FIR No. 88 of 2019 at Police Station Kotla Mubarakpur, Delhi. The prosecution alleged that the appellant sexually assaulted a boy aged about eight on two occasions in February 2019, and threatened to kill the child's mother if he disclosed it. The child disclosed the assaults after his family noticed he was bleeding, and the appellant was apprehended by members of the public the same evening.
The Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Special Court (POCSO), South-East District, Saket, convicted the appellant on 30 November 2023 under sections 377 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and section 6 of the POCSO Act, and on 6 March 2024 sentenced him to 25 years' rigorous imprisonment under section 6, with a fine of Rs 10,000. No separate sentence was awarded under section 377 in view of section 42 of the POCSO Act. The appellant challenged both the conviction and the sentence before the High Court.
The issue: conviction and the applicable sentence
The appellant attacked the conviction on the ground that the child's account contained discrepancies about the precise date, the exact spot and the sequence of disclosure, and that there was no corroborative medical evidence. He relied on two earlier decisions of the Delhi High Court — Vikash v. State (NCT of Delhi) and Suraj Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi) — in which the testimony was held insufficient because of material contradictions and the absence of corroboration.
On sentence, the question was which version of section 6 governed. As originally enacted, section 6 prescribed rigorous imprisonment of not less than 10 years, extendable to imprisonment for life. The 2019 Amendment Act, in force from 16 August 2019, substituted section 6 and raised the minimum to 20 years, defined imprisonment for life as imprisonment for the remainder of the offender's natural life, and introduced the death penalty for the offence.
The rule: child testimony, section 29, and retrospectivity
The testimony of a child victim may found a conviction when it inspires confidence and is free from material infirmities. Section 29 of the POCSO Act raises a presumption of guilt once the prosecution has established the foundational facts; it does not dispense with proving those facts first. On sentencing, the Supreme Court held in State of U.P. v. Sonu Kushwaha, (2023) 7 SCC 475, that the enhancement of the minimum sentence to 20 years from 16 August 2019 would not apply to an incident that occurred before the amendment.
The High Court applied both rules. It distinguished the two decisions relied on by the appellant: in Vikash the prosecutrix had given materially different versions at different stages, including an earlier version exculpating the accused, while in Suraj Kumar the doubt arose from contradictions between the child victim and her mother and the absence of corroborative medical evidence. Here the child had never given an earlier version exculpating the appellant and remained consistent on the identity of the appellant, the nature and repetition of the acts, and the threat. The variations went only to the precise date, the exact spot and the sequence of disclosure, and did not amount to mutually destructive versions.
The reasoning: conviction affirmed, sentence recalibrated
The Court held that the foundational facts stood proved through the school record establishing the child's age, the child's direct and reliable testimony identifying the appellant and describing the assaults and the threat, the evidence of two witnesses corroborating the disclosure and reporting, and medical evidence that did not contradict the possibility of the occurrence. The discrepancies did not create a reasonable doubt, and the trial court had committed no error in convicting him under sections 377 and 506 of the IPC and section 6 of the POCSO Act.
On sentence, the Court held that the unamended section 6 governed the appeal, since the incidents occurred before 16 August 2019. The 25-year sentence fell within the unamended range, but its quantum required consideration on the touchstone of proportionality. The appellant was about 22 years and five months old at the time of the incidents, had no previous involvement in any similar offence, and had remained in custody since 6 March 2019. Against that, the child victim was only about eight years old, the assault was committed on two occasions, and the appellant had threatened to kill the child's mother to prevent disclosure. Having regard to both sets of circumstances, the Court held that 10 years' rigorous imprisonment would adequately meet the ends of justice, within the range under the unamended provision and without any retrospective application of the amended minimum.
Outcome and what happens next
The conviction dated 30 November 2023 is affirmed. The sentence order dated 6 March 2024 is modified only to reduce the 25 years' rigorous imprisonment under section 6 of the POCSO Act to 10 years. The fine of Rs 10,000 and 30 days' simple imprisonment in default remain unchanged, as do the 18 months' simple imprisonment and Rs 5,000 fine under section 506 of the IPC, the direction that both substantive sentences run concurrently, and the Rs 7,50,000 compensation to the child victim. The appellant is entitled to set-off under section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the period already undergone. The appeal is partly allowed, and a copy of the judgment is to be sent to the trial court and the jail superintendent.
The conviction stands. The appellant, in custody since March 2019, will have the period already undergone set off against the reduced sentence.
BANTHRY ANALYSISFor law students
This judgment separates two questions: whether the accused committed the offence, and which sentencing law applies. On the first, note how the Court treats a child witness — consistency on foundational facts matters more than precision on peripheral details, and corroboration of the disclosure and reporting can come from the disclosure witnesses, while the school record proves the child's age, rather than resting on medical evidence alone. Section 29's presumption operates only after the prosecution proves the foundational facts; it is not a shortcut around proof.
On the second, the case applies Sonu Kushwaha: the amended 20-year minimum does not apply to an incident that occurred before 16 August 2019. Note also the proportionality exercise — the Court fixed the sentence at the unamended minimum of 10 years' rigorous imprisonment, weighing the offender's age and the absence of any previous involvement in a similar offence against the gravity of the offence.
READING PROMPTSQuestions for a closer reading
- Why did the High Court hold that the amended section 6 of the POCSO Act, with its 20-year minimum, could not govern this sentence?
- On what basis did the Court affirm the conviction despite the discrepancies in the child's account relied on by the appellant?
- What aggravating and mitigating circumstances did the Court weigh in reducing the sentence from 25 years to 10 years?
