Introduction
The Delhi High Court delivered a landmark judgment regarding the investigation of sexual offences under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act). The bench held that the fact that a minor victim’s clothes were changed by a guardian before her medical examination does not, by itself, weaken the prosecution’s case. The decision reaffirms that technical irregularities do not automatically render forensic and testimonial evidence inadmissible or unreliable.
Facts of the Case
In the case of Jai Mangal Mehto v. State (NCT of Delhi), the victim was a nine-year-old girl who alleged that her maternal uncle sexually assaulted her while she was sleeping. A formal complaint was lodged by the mother of the minor. The minor was taken for a medical examination and the forensic findings revealed semen stains on her lower garment. The medical examination also recorded that the hymen was intact. The accused contested the conviction by arguing that the bedsheet was never seized and that the victim’s mother had changed the victim’s clothes before the medical examination, arguments he raised to challenge the integrity of the evidence.
What the Court Says
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma, presiding over the bench, clarified that the POCSO Act imposes a statutory presumption under Section 29 in favour of the victim, unless the accused can substantiate a contrary possibility. The court noted that the intact hymen does not necessarily rule out assault or attempt, particularly in cases brought under Section 18 of the POCSO Act (attempt to commit sexual assault). The court held that the presence of semen stains on the lower garment of the minor was strong corroboration of the prosecution’s case and made it clear that the accused had failed to offer credible evidence of tampering or manipulation of the exhibits.
Regarding the change of clothes by the mother, the court observed that such conduct was “natural and humanly understandable” given the circumstances of a nine-year-old victim whose garments were soiled. The court held that this act, by itself, did not create reasonable doubt about the integrity of the prosecution evidence. The court rejected the notion that this act could break the chain of custody or discredit the forensic findings when there was no affirmative proof of tampering or foul play.
Implications
This ruling offers valuable guidance for the investigation and prosecution of sexual offences involving minors. First, it clarifies that procedural irregularities, such as changing clothes before medical examination, do not automatically invalidate evidence or warrant an acquittal. The Court emphasizes that the totality of evidence, including forensic findings and credible testimony, must be considered. Second, the decision reinforces the strength of the statutory presumption under Section 29 of the POCSO Act, underscoring that the burden lies heavily on the accused to rebut the presumption with credible evidence of tampering or false implication. Third, for law-enforcement officials and forensic practitioners, this judgment signals the importance of timely action, proper documentation, and safeguarding exhibits, but also cautions that minor deviations do not necessarily doom a prosecution.
For any specific query call at +91 – 8569843472
Conclusion
In this judgment of the Delhi High Court, the court held firmly that the change of a minor victim’s clothes before medical examination does not, in itself, weaken the prosecution’s case under the POCSO Act. The court reaffirmed that forensic evidence combined with credible testimony can sustain a conviction, even in the face of perceived procedural lapses, as long as the accused fails to provide convincing proof of tampering. The ruling strengthens the legal position of victims in sexual offence cases and clarifies that the protection offered by the POCSO Act will not be undermined by every procedural anomaly.
