Bar Council of India Notice

Disclaimer & Confirmation

As per the rules of the Bar Council of India, an advocate is not permitted to solicit work or advertise. By clicking “I Agree” below, you acknowledge and confirm that:

you are seeking information about Advocate Manish Jha of your own accord and for your own information and use; there has been no advertisement, personal communication, solicitation, invitation or inducement of any kind whatsoever from Advocate Manish Jha or the chamber to solicit any work through this website; the information made available here is provided only on your specific request; and no information on this website is to be construed as legal advice, nor does its use create any advocate-client relationship.

⚖  E-397, 4th Floor, Tagore Garden Extension, New Delhi – 110027 Mon–Sat  ·  +91 98738 50301  ·  legal@advocatemanishjha.com
Advocate Manish Jha Criminal · Civil · Family Law — New Delhi ☎  Consult the Chamber
Home › POCSO: Van Driver Conviction
Delhi High Court · 5 November 2026

Entrusted With Children: Van Driver’s Aggravated Sexual Assault Conviction Upheld

The child’s testimony was cogent, consistent and corroborated by immediate disclosure to her mother; the van-fare defence had no evidence behind it; and the Section 29 presumption stood unrebutted.

☎  Speak to the Chamber Chamber & Location

In Anuj @ Ambuz @ Chhavinder Kumar v. State NCT of Delhi (CRL.A. 5/2024, decided 5 November 2026), Justice Madhu Jain of the Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal of a school van driver convicted under Section 10 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 for aggravated sexual assault on a ten-year-old passenger, affirming the sentence of seven years’ rigorous imprisonment with fine and victim compensation of Rs 3,00,000.

The case in one view

CaseAnuj @ Ambuz @ Chhavinder Kumar v. State NCT of Delhi, CRL.A. 5/2024
CourtHigh Court of Delhi, Justice Madhu Jain
Decided5 November 2026 (reserved 28 October 2026)
BelowFIR 114/2018, PS Mangolpuri; conviction under Section 10 POCSO by ASJ-01 (POCSO), Rohini — 7 years RI, Rs 20,000 fine, Rs 3,00,000 compensation
OutcomeAppeal dismissed; appellant directed to surrender within four weeks

The prosecution case

The appellant drove the school van in which the child, then about ten years old and in Class V, travelled. On 14 February 2018, the prosecution alleged, he made her touch his penis on the pretext of teaching her to change gears, and threatened to kill her if she told anyone. She told her mother the same day, and the FIR was registered. The trial court convicted him under Section 10 of the POCSO Act (he was acquitted of the charge under Section 506 IPC) and imposed seven years’ rigorous imprisonment with fine and compensation.

The three pillars of the affirmance

1. Age, formally proved. The admission form, the school’s admission register and the MCD birth certificate established the date of birth (13 January 2008), following the approach in Ashwani Kumar Saxena. Age is the jurisdictional fact of every POCSO case, and here it was documentary and unchallenged.
2. The child’s testimony. Applying State v. Pankaj Chaudhary and Ganesan v. State, the court held that “the testimony of the victim, if found to be cogent, credible and trustworthy, can form the sole basis of conviction”. Her account was consistent on all material particulars and withstood cross-examination; the mother’s evidence of immediate disclosure corroborated it.
3. The unrebutted presumption. With the foundational facts in place, Section 29 POCSO presumed the commission of the offence. The defence — false implication arising from a van-fare dispute — was supported by no evidence and squarely denied by the mother. The presumption therefore operated with full force.

The relationship of trust

The judgment’s most quotable line addresses the setting rather than the elements: “A school van driver is entrusted with the safety and well-being of children”, the court observed, likening the role to that of a parent. The observation matters for sentencing. Within the five-to-seven-year band of Section 10, the breach of a custodial relationship of trust justified the maximum, and the High Court declined to soften it. The compensation of Rs 3,00,000 under Section 33(8) of the Act read with Rule 9 of the POCSO Rules, 2020 was likewise maintained, as was the set-off under Section 428 CrPC.

What the decision reinforces

Sole testimony doctrine. POCSO trials frequently turn on the child alone. The settled test is quality, not quantity: cogency, consistency and credibility, assessed with sensitivity to the child’s age.
Immediate disclosure. Same-day disclosure to a parent remains among the strongest corroborative circumstances, closing the space for theories of tutoring or afterthought.
Defences need evidence. A motive theory — a fare dispute, a quarrel, a grudge — must be put to witnesses and proved. An unsubstantiated suggestion leaves Section 29 untouched.
Surrender follows. Where sentence was suspended pending appeal, dismissal carries a surrender direction — here, within four weeks.

A note on the current law

The offence predates 1 July 2024, so the IPC and CrPC applied alongside the POCSO Act. For later offences, the procedural frame is the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, and the general penal provisions are found in the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — but the POCSO Act itself continues unchanged as the special statute, and with it the presumption under Section 29, the child-friendly trial procedure, and the compensation regime under the 2020 Rules.

Frequently Asked Questions

Can a POCSO conviction rest on the child's testimony alone?

Yes. The court reiterated that the testimony of the victim, if found cogent, credible and trustworthy, can form the sole basis of conviction. Here the child's account was consistent on all material particulars and unshaken in cross-examination, and her immediate disclosure to her mother supplied additional assurance.

How was the victim's age proved?

Through the school admission form, the admission register and the MCD birth certificate, establishing her date of birth and an age of about ten years at the time of the offence — the route recognised in Ashwani Kumar Saxena, now codified for POCSO purposes through Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015.

What is the Section 29 POCSO presumption?

Once foundational facts are established, Section 29 presumes that the accused committed the offence charged under Sections 3, 5, 7 and 9 of the Act, unless the contrary is proved. The appellant's defence of false implication over a van-fare dispute was unsupported by any evidence and was denied by the mother in cross-examination, so the presumption stood unrebutted.

Why was the offence \"aggravated\" sexual assault?

Section 9(m) elevates sexual assault to aggravated sexual assault when committed on a child below twelve years. The victim being about ten, the conviction fell under Section 10, which prescribes imprisonment of five to seven years. The trial court imposed the maximum seven years, and the High Court found no ground to interfere.

Sources

Note: This article is general information about the law and is not legal advice. It does not create an advocate-client relationship. The position stated is as at 6 November 2026 and may have changed since. Readers should verify any provision or decision referred to against the official text and seek advice on their own circumstances.