In Ram Pravesh Thakur v. State of N.C.T. of Delhi (CRL.A. 1669/2025, decided on 9 September 2026), the Delhi High Court dismissed a criminal appeal against conviction under Sections 10 and 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and Sections 354 and 354B IPC. The appeal, filed under Sections 415 and 528 of the BNSS, tested the two arguments most often raised in POCSO appeals — improbability of the incident and false implication over a money dispute — and the judgment shows why both failed against a consistent child witness.
The Case
The appellant was convicted by the trial court for aggravated sexual assault and sexual harassment of a minor. The prosecution\'s account was that he approached the child while she lay on a bed, touched her shoulder, and opened the zip of his pants exposing himself. Her brother entered and saw the accused with his hand on his sister\'s shoulder and his zip open. The trial court convicted under Sections 10 and 12 of the POCSO Act and Sections 354 and 354B IPC; the appeal to the Delhi High Court followed under Section 415 read with Section 528 BNSS.
The Evidence That Held
Justice C. Sudha found the victim\'s testimony reliable and consistent, and — crucially — corroborated by her brother\'s eyewitness account. POCSO jurisprudence permits conviction on the sole testimony of the child where it inspires confidence; here the prosecution had more, and the two accounts fitted each other without the kind of contradiction that undoes such cases.
The Two Defences, Examined
Presumptions and the Defence Burden
Once the foundational facts of a POCSO offence are established through credible evidence, the statutory architecture — including the presumptions the Act raises — places a real evidentiary burden on the accused. A motive theory must be proved to a degree that renders the prosecution version doubtful; a suggestion in cross-examination, unsupported by material, does not reach that threshold. This judgment is a textbook application of that allocation of burdens.
Sentencing
| Count | Sentence affirmed |
|---|---|
| Section 10, POCSO (aggravated sexual assault) | 5 years\' simple imprisonment + ₹5,000 fine |
| Section 12, POCSO (sexual harassment) | 2 years\' imprisonment + ₹3,000 fine |
| Sections 354, 354B IPC | Convictions affirmed (offences pre-dating BNS; now Sections 74 and 76 BNS for later offences) |
What Appellate Counsel Should Take From This
- Improbability defences must be laid in cross-examination of the victim; appellate courts will note the omission.
- A false-implication theory needs independent material — transactions, complaints, prior disputes on record — not narrative alone.
- Sibling and family eyewitnesses, often dismissed as interested witnesses, are fully competent corroboration where their accounts are natural and consistent.
This article is for general information only and is not legal advice or a solicitation. The cited judgment should be read in full from the official record.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can a POCSO conviction rest on the child's testimony alone?
Yes, if the testimony is reliable and inspires confidence. In this case the child's account was additionally corroborated by her brother, who witnessed the accused with his hand on his sister's shoulder and the zip of his pants open. The combination of a consistent victim and an eyewitness sibling made the prosecution case formidable.
How did the Court deal with the "family was at home" improbability argument?
The defence argued the incident was improbable on a Sunday with family members present. The Court responded that it is not necessary that all members remain at home throughout the day — and noted that the defence had not even put specific questions to the victim on the presence of family members during cross-examination.
What was the false-implication defence and why did it fail?
The accused claimed he was falsely implicated over a loan dispute. The Court found it improbable that a person would deliberately miss his train and return to demand repayment in the manner alleged; the defence story did not displace the direct evidence.
What sentences were affirmed?
Five years' simple imprisonment with a fine of ₹5,000 for the offence under Section 10 POCSO (aggravated sexual assault), and two years with a fine of ₹3,000 under Section 12 POCSO (sexual harassment), alongside the IPC counts under Sections 354 and 354B.