In Ali Khan v. State of NCT of Delhi (CRL.A. 1012/2025, decided 3 November 2026), the Delhi High Court dismissed an appeal against conviction under Sections 363, 376 and 506 IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act, affirming a sentence of twenty years' rigorous imprisonment for aggravated penetrative sexual assault of a 13-year-old child. Justice Madhu Jain held that the victim's testimony was trustworthy and required no corroboration, that her minority stood proved by school records, and that investigative lapses could not displace otherwise reliable evidence.
The case in one view
| Case | Ali Khan v. State of NCT of Delhi & Anr, CRL.A. 1012/2025 |
|---|---|
| Court | High Court of Delhi, Justice Madhu Jain |
| Decided | 3 November 2026 (reserved 27 October 2026) |
| Trial court | ASJ-01/POCSO, Rohini; SC No. 318/2021, FIR No. 122/2021, PS Bharat Nagar |
| Conviction | Sections 363, 376, 506 IPC; Section 6 POCSO Act |
| Outcome | Appeal dismissed; 20-year sentence and Rs 10,50,000 compensation upheld |
From missing-person report to conviction
The case began in March 2021, when a mother reported that her 13-year-old daughter had gone missing from her home in Delhi. The child was recovered on 27 March 2021 from premises in JJ Colony, Wazirpur. The prosecution’s case was that the appellant — a man the family trusted, described in the evidence as the victim’s dharam bhai — had taken her away and sexually assaulted her over a period of time. The trial court convicted him on 1 April 2025 and, on 15 April 2025, sentenced him to twenty years’ rigorous imprisonment under Section 6 POCSO, with concurrent terms under Sections 363 and 506 IPC, fines, and victim compensation of Rs 10,50,000 under Section 33(8) POCSO read with Rule 9 of the POCSO Rules, 2020.
The three questions on appeal
1. Could the sole testimony sustain conviction?
The defence attacked the victim’s uncorroborated account and pleaded false implication arising from a monetary dispute.
2. Was minority proved?
The age finding rested on the school record showing a date of birth of 26 May 2008 — about 12 years 9 months at the relevant time.
3. Did investigative lapses vitiate the case?
Date discrepancies around the missing complaint and recovery, and other lapses, were pressed as fatal defects.
The Court\'s answers
All three questions were answered against the appellant. On sole testimony, the Court held that “the testimony of a prosecutrix, if trustworthy and inspiring confidence, does not require corroboration as a matter of law,” and found that “no material contradiction or infirmity has emerged in her testimony so as to discredit her version.” On age, the school record stood proved and unimpeached. On the investigation, the Court reiterated the settled position that defective investigation is not by itself a ground to discard otherwise reliable evidence — a principle that prevents the prosecution’s procedural failings from automatically becoming the accused’s windfall where the substantive evidence holds. The false-implication plea, said to arise from a monetary dispute, “remains unsupported by any material on record.”
Why the offence was aggravated
The Court held that the proved conduct fell within Sections 5(l) and 5(n) of the POCSO Act — repeated assault, and assault by a person in a position of trust — attracting the aggravated offence under Section 6. The relationship of trust that gave the appellant access to the child was thus not merely background: it was an element that elevated the offence and fixed the sentencing floor. Since the twenty-year term was the statutory minimum for the aggravated offence, the Court found “no ground to interfere with the sentence imposed.” The convictions, concurrent sentences, fines and the compensation direction were all upheld, with set-off under Section 428 CrPC for the period already served.
Practice perspective: POCSO appeals increasingly turn on two fixed points — the statutory proof of age and the quality of the child’s testimony. Where the school record survives scrutiny and the child’s account is consistent on the core allegation, arguments built on peripheral discrepancies and investigative lapses rarely succeed. Defence strategy has to engage the core evidence at trial, through focused cross-examination conducted within the limits the law sets for child witnesses; an appellate court will not reweigh a credible child witness merely because the investigation could have been better. Equally, the judgment is a reminder that compensation under Section 33(8) and Rule 9 is now a standard component of POCSO sentencing in Delhi, and appellate affirmation includes it.
Frequently Asked Questions
What was the prosecution case?
In March 2021 a mother reported her 13-year-old daughter missing from her Delhi home. The child was recovered on 27 March 2021 from premises in JJ Colony, Wazirpur. The prosecution alleged that the appellant — a man the family trusted, described in evidence as the victim's dharam bhai — took her away and sexually assaulted her over a period of time.
How was the child's age proved?
Through her school record, which showed a date of birth of 26 May 2008, making her about 12 years and 9 months old at the relevant time. Proof of minority through school records in the statutory hierarchy is a recurring battleground in POCSO trials, and here the record stood unimpeached, squarely attracting the Act.
Why did the sole testimony suffice without corroboration?
The Court reiterated that the testimony of a prosecutrix, if trustworthy and inspiring confidence, does not require corroboration as a matter of law. It found no material contradiction or infirmity in her version, and rejected the false-implication plea — said to arise from a monetary dispute — as unsupported by any material on record.
What sentence and compensation were affirmed?
Twenty years' rigorous imprisonment under Section 6 POCSO — the statutory minimum for the aggravated offence — with concurrent terms of seven years under Section 363 and two years under Section 506 IPC, fines, victim compensation of Rs 10,50,000 under Section 33(8) POCSO read with Rule 9 of the POCSO Rules 2020, and set-off for time served under Section 428 CrPC.