On 10 August 2026, Justice Chandrasekharan Sudha of the High Court of Delhi allowed in part a State appeal against a 2016 acquittal in State (NCT of Delhi) v. Sajid Ali, Crl.A. 1065/2016. The Court held that the prosecution had failed to prove the complainant's minority, so the charge under Section 10 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 could not stand — but convicted the accused of sexual harassment under Section 354A(1)(i) of the Indian Penal Code on the strength of the complainant's consistent testimony. The judgment is equally significant for its strong words on cross-examination directed at a complainant's clothing, and for the administrative directions issued with it.
The prosecution case and the acquittal
The complaint dated back to July 2013. A young woman alleged that the accused had been stalking her and passing sexually coloured remarks, and that on the date of the incident, as she returned home after buying medicine, he touched her without consent. The accused was charged under Section 354A of the Indian Penal Code and Section 10 of the POCSO Act, the prosecution asserting that she was seventeen at the time.
The trial court acquitted. Its reasons were of a familiar kind: the victim\'s age had not been satisfactorily proved; there were discrepancies about the timing of the arrest and the recording of the complaint; independent public witnesses had not been examined; and counter-complaints against the complainant\'s family had not been investigated.
Where the trial court was right: proof of age
The High Court agreed with the trial court on one decisive point. The birth certificate relied upon by the prosecution was not supported by the underlying record — the relevant register contained no entry for the complainant. Holding that "the prosecution has failed to satisfactorily establish the age or minority" of the complainant, the Court declined to apply the POCSO Act at all. The judgment is a reminder that in POCSO prosecutions, proof of age is a jurisdictional fact that must be established by reliable evidence, not assumed from the charge sheet.
Where it was wrong: the core testimony
On the substantive allegation, the High Court took a different view of the record. The complainant\'s account of the incident — unwanted physical contact coupled with sexually coloured remarks — had remained consistent across the first information report, her statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and her deposition at trial. The Court held that the overt act of touching, coupled with the remarks, squarely constituted sexual harassment under Section 354A(1)(i) IPC.
As to the investigative lapses that had impressed the trial court, the High Court applied the settled principle that a defective investigation does not by itself dislodge a prosecution case resting on credible and consistent testimony. Minor procedural discrepancies go to the weight of the evidence; they are not an independent route to acquittal where the core allegation stands substantiated.
| Issue | Trial court | High Court |
|---|---|---|
| Proof of age / POCSO | Not proved — acquittal on all charges | Not proved — POCSO charge fails |
| Testimony of the complainant | Outweighed by discrepancies | Consistent across FIR, S.164 statement and trial; conviction under S.354A(1)(i) IPC |
| Defective investigation | Ground for acquittal | Relevant, but cannot eclipse credible core evidence |
Cross-examination and the dignity of the witness
A distinct portion of the judgment addresses how the complainant was cross-examined. Questions had been put to her about her clothing and her religion. The Court described this line of questioning as wholly irrelevant and improper, observing that it appeared designed to embarrass and morally judge the witness rather than to test her evidence, and recording that a woman\'s choice of attire neither diminishes her dignity nor justifies unlawful conduct. Trial courts, the judgment emphasises, are not passive spectators: they are expected to disallow questions that are irrelevant and intended only to humiliate.
The Court went further than censure. It directed that the judgment be circulated to the district judiciary in Delhi, with training programmes to address the protection of witness dignity during cross-examination — a systemic direction that will interest every practitioner who conducts trials involving sexual offences.
What happens next
Having recorded the conviction under Section 354A(1)(i) IPC, the Court listed the matter for hearing on sentence. Because the incident occurred in 2013, the case was governed by the IPC; for conduct after 1 July 2024, the corresponding provision is Section 75 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
Practice points. Proof of age in POCSO cases must be anchored in the primary record, not a certificate standing alone. Consistency of the complainant\'s account across the FIR, the Section 164 statement and the deposition remains the single most weighty factor in these appeals. And cross-examination strategy that attacks the complainant rather than the evidence now carries a documented judicial cost in Delhi.
The appeal was decided on the record of a 2013 incident under the law then in force. This article summarises a published judgment for general information and is not legal advice.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can a High Court reverse an acquittal recorded by the trial court?
Yes. An appellate court can re-appreciate the evidence in an appeal against acquittal, though it interferes only where the trial court's view is unreasonable or overlooks material evidence. In this case the High Court found the acquittal rested on peripheral discrepancies while the core, consistent testimony of the complainant had gone substantially unshaken.
How is the age of a victim proved in a POCSO case?
Through reliable documentary proof such as a birth certificate supported by the underlying register entry, school records of the kind recognised by law, or, failing these, medical age determination. Here the birth certificate was not supported by any entry in the relevant register, and the Court held minority had not been satisfactorily established, so the POCSO charge failed.
Does a defective investigation entitle the accused to acquittal?
Not by itself. The Court reiterated that lapses in investigation — timing discrepancies, failure to examine independent witnesses — do not vitiate the prosecution case where the substantive evidence is credible and consistent. Defective investigation is weighed, but it cannot eclipse reliable testimony on the core allegation.
What is the current provision corresponding to Section 354A IPC?
For offences committed on or after 1 July 2024, sexual harassment is punishable under Section 75 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The IPC applied in this case because the incident dates to 2013, well before the new code came into force.