Delhi High Court Reduces Sentence for Man Convicted of Sexual Assault on Minor

In a significant ruling, the Delhi High Court has reduced the sentence of a 65-year-old man convicted of sexually assaulting his minor granddaughter from ten years to five years. The court found that the evidence presented did not meet the required standards for a conviction, highlighting inconsistencies in the victim's statements and procedural delays. This decision raises important questions about the handling of such sensitive cases and the standards of evidence required in court. Read on for a detailed overview of the court's findings and implications.
 | 
Delhi High Court Reduces Sentence for Man Convicted of Sexual Assault on Minor

Court Decision on Sexual Assault Case

The Delhi High Court has reduced the sentence of a 65-year-old man, convicted in 2015 for sexually assaulting his minor granddaughter, from ten years to five years. Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri noted that the allegations against the individual regarding the molestation of the victim's private parts were not proven beyond reasonable doubt. However, the minor consistently maintained her claims during the hearings.


In its ruling issued on January 6, the court stated, "Considering the appellant's age of nearly 65 years, his original sentence has been modified to five years of rigorous imprisonment, which is the minimum mandatory sentence under Section 10 of the POCSO Act."


According to the prosecution, the victim's grandmother filed a complaint in 2015, alleging that her husband had sexually assaulted their six-year-old granddaughter. The accused, however, contended that he was falsely implicated, citing inconsistencies in the child's statements and delays in filing the FIR.


The court remarked that the delay in registering the FIR and the subsequent postponement of the victim's medical examination resulted in a lack of forensic evidence. The judge emphasized that while it is established law that a conviction can be upheld based solely on the testimony of the child victim, such testimony must be of excellent quality. The High Court concluded that this requirement was not met in the current case due to several inconsistencies in the minor's various statements.