Delhi HC Upholds Conviction in Kashmere Gate Minor Sexual Assault Case, Cuts Sentence
The Delhi High Court has upheld the conviction of a man found guilty of sexually assaulting an 11-year-old homeless boy under a railway bridge at Kashmere Gate, while modifying his prison sentence from 20 years to ten years.
In a judgment delivered on August 10, Justice Chandrasekharan Sudha upheld the trial court's August 2025 decision convicting the accused under Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, which covers unnatural offences, and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act for aggravated penetrative sexual assault.
The High Court, however, reduced the trial court's 20-year jail sentence to ten years after noting that at the time the offence occurred in November 2016, the prescribed sentence was a decade. The statutory amendment making Section 6 of the POCSO Act punishable with a minimum term of 20 years came into effect later, on August 16, 2019.
According to the minor survivor, the accused sexually assaulted him in November 2016 while he was asleep under a railway bridge located in Kashmere Gate. The incident came to light after the minor informed social workers who were running a medical aid programme for homeless individuals in the area. The social workers subsequently reported the matter through the police helpline.
During the proceedings, counsel for the accused claimed false implication and argued that the prosecution had failed to establish that the boy was under 12 years of age. The defence also pointed to alleged inconsistencies in the survivor's testimony concerning the incident and the clothes he was wearing at the time.
The High Court rejected these arguments, observing that the boy's inability to state his precise age, birth date, or specific minor details did not benefit the defence. While the survivor stated during testimony that he was around 15 years old, the court noted that given his social background, it was unrealistic to expect him to know his exact age.
School records produced before the court established the survivor's date of birth as October 12, 2005, confirming he was 11 years old when the crime took place. The court also held that the lack of external physical injuries on the minor was not sufficient grounds to discredit what it determined to be a consistent and trustworthy testimony.
