17 July 2025 POCSO >> Criminal Law  

The High Court has dismissed the appeal filed by Mohd. Sajid Benam, upholding his conviction under Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act) and Sections 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The appellant was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and 3 years respectively, along with fines.

The case involves the aggravated penetrative gang sexual assault of a 13-year-old boy (referred to as Child Victim "A") by the appellant and two co-accused, Chand and Arif (a juvenile in conflict with law). The incident occurred on January 24, 2016, around 10:00 PM, when Child Victim "A" and his friend "N" went to a Jagran (religious gathering) in Aman Vihar, Delhi. At approximately 3:00 AM, three individuals approached the victim, took him to an oil tanker, and subjected him to anal sexual assault. One of the assailants, identified as Arif, threatened the victim with a knife to prevent him from raising an alarm. The victim was rescued when his friend "N" and an uncle (PW-9 Pushpender) came searching for him. The assailants fled the scene.

An FIR was registered based on the victim's complaint. Following the arrest of Chand, he disclosed the names of Mohd. Sajid Benam (the appellant) and Arif. Mohd. Sajid was subsequently arrested on April 15, 2016. Arif could not be apprehended and was declared a proclaimed offender.

During the trial, the prosecution presented 18 witnesses. The key witnesses included:

• PW-4 Child Victim "A": He consistently supported the entire incident, detailing the forced entry into the oil tanker, the sexual assault by two individuals, and the threat of a knife by the third. His testimony remained consistent through extensive cross-examination, and no material contradictions were found.
• PW-5 Child Witness "N": The victim's friend corroborated the events, including how the victim was taken away, his own attempt to follow, being threatened, and eventually finding the victim in the tanker with the help of PW-9.
• PW-9 Pushpender: The uncle who accompanied PW-5 to rescue the victim, also corroborated the main sequence of events, despite minor discrepancies regarding exact timing and names due to the passage of time. His testimony was largely unchallenged by the defense.
• PW-10 Dr. Gurdeep: The Chief Medical Officer proved the victim's MLC (Medico-Legal Case) report, which noted "abrasion around anal opening" and an alleged history of sodomy, thereby medically corroborating the sexual assault.

The appellant's defense primarily argued that there was no incriminating evidence against him, that the judgment was mechanical, and that the prosecution failed to prove the chain of circumstances beyond reasonable doubt. They also claimed inconsistencies and contradictions in the testimonies of prosecution witnesses, particularly regarding timings and the victim's initial statements about being beaten. The defense suggested that the non-recovery of the knife and the alleged prior acquaintance between the victim and the appellant discredited the prosecution's case.

However, the High Court systematically addressed and rejected these arguments:

• The court found the testimony of the Child Victim (PW-4) to be consistent and reliable, despite thorough cross-examination. Minor discrepancies in timing by other witnesses were deemed immaterial and did not discredit the core incident.
• The corroboration by PW-5 and PW-9 was considered strong, especially since PW-9's testimony was largely unchallenged by the defense.
• The medical evidence (MLC) provided independent corroboration of the sexual assault.
• The non-recovery of the knife was deemed insignificant as it was used for threat by an unapprehended co-accused (Arif) and not central to the sexual offense itself.
• The defense's claim of false implication was not substantiated, as the appellant was not known to the victim prior to the incident and was not named in the initial FIR, suggesting no motive for false accusation. No evidence was produced to support the claim that the victim knew the appellant from school or mosque.

Concluding that the prosecution had successfully proved its case beyond reasonable doubt, the High Court found no grounds to interfere with the trial court's judgment of conviction and order on sentence. The appeal was therefore dismissed.

Section 6, Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act - 2012

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012  

Section 34., Indian Penal Code - 1860  

Section 506., Indian Penal Code - 1860  

Indian Penal Code, 1860