In Deepu @ Deepak v. State (CRL.A. 83/2018, decided on 9 September 2026), the Delhi High Court allowed a criminal appeal and acquitted the appellant of offences under Sections 342, 363, 377 and 506 Part I IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act. The judgment is a careful illustration of the other side of POCSO jurisprudence: while a child's credible testimony can sustain conviction, unexplained forensic gaps, medical findings inconsistent with the allegation and material contradictions can, together, leave a court unable to sustain guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
The Appeal
The appellant stood convicted by the trial court of wrongful confinement, kidnapping, an unnatural offence and criminal intimidation under the IPC, together with aggravated penetrative sexual assault under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012. The appeal — pending since 2018 — was heard and allowed by Justice C. Sudha, who set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellant.
The Four Fractures in the Prosecution Case
The Motive Backdrop
Days before the FIR, the accused had intervened in a quarrel involving neighbours. The Court noted the testimony suggested "the possibility of FIR being lodged in the backdrop of the quarrel cannot be completely ruled out." The judgment did not brand the complaint false; it applied the classical standard — where a real possibility consistent with innocence survives the evidence, the benefit belongs to the accused.
Reading This Judgment with Its Companion
Interestingly, the same Bench on the same day dismissed another POCSO appeal, affirming a conviction where the child\'s testimony was consistent and corroborated by an eyewitness sibling. The two outcomes are not in tension: together they mark the boundary of POCSO adjudication. Credible, consistent testimony convicts, even without medical corroboration; testimony beset by contradiction, unexplained forensic gaps and a plausible alternative genesis does not. The variable is the quality of the evidence, not the seriousness of the charge.
Lessons for Investigation and Defence
- For investigators: forensic material once collected must be processed and produced; an unexplained gap in the chain invites an adverse inference that no closing argument can repair.
- For prosecutors: reconcile the disclosure narrative across the FIR, the Section 164 statement and the deposition before trial, not after the defence exposes the divergence.
- For the defence: contradictions on the genesis of the complaint — how, when and why the disclosure happened — are often more productive than attacking the child\'s account of the incident itself.
- For appellate practice: long-pending appeals can succeed on the record alone; this conviction dated to 2018 and was undone entirely on the trial transcript.
This article is for general information only and is not legal advice or a solicitation. The discussion of sexual offences against children is presented solely for professional legal information. The cited judgment should be read in full from the official record.
Frequently Asked Questions
What were the decisive evidentiary gaps?
Four accumulated: the medical examination revealed no injuries or abnormal findings despite allegations of a painful assault; rectal swabs were collected but never sent to the FSL and no report was produced or explained; the disclosure timeline in the FIR contradicted the Section 164 statement; and the arrest accounts conflicted.
Does a normal medical report always lead to acquittal in POCSO cases?
No. Courts routinely convict on credible testimony despite neutral medical evidence, especially where examination is delayed. Here, however, the examination six days after the incident showed findings the prosecution's own narrative made unlikely — no bleeding history, no bruising, normal tone — and the prosecution offered no explanation for the inconsistency.
Why did the unsent FSL samples matter so much?
Because the prosecution collected potentially determinative scientific evidence and then abandoned it without explanation. When the State gathers forensic material and fails to produce the result, the court may draw an inference against the prosecution — the gap is of the investigation's own making.
What role did the prior quarrel play?
The accused had intervened in a neighbourhood quarrel days before the FIR, and the testimony left open the possibility that the complaint was lodged against that backdrop. The Court did not hold the case false; it held that the possibility could not be completely ruled out — which, combined with the other gaps, sustained reasonable doubt.