Delhi High Court Clarifies: Mere ‘Physical Relations’ Allegation Cannot Establish Rape under POCSO
In a significant judgment, the Delhi High Court recently ruled that a vague reference to “physical relations” — without clear, corroborative evidence of sexual penetration or assault — cannot sustain a conviction under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act or Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
The ruling, delivered by Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri, reiterates that courts must not jump to conclusions merely from loosely used terms like “physical relations” or “sambandh banaya”, especially when the testimony is unclear and lacks forensic or medical corroboration.
Background of the Case
The case arose from a 2023 FIR alleging that the accused — a relative of the victim — had maintained “physical relations” with the minor girl in 2014 under the false promise of marriage. The trial court convicted the accused under Section 376 IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act, sentencing him to 10 years’ rigorous imprisonment.
However, the Delhi High Court found that the trial court had made an unsubstantiated leap from the term “physical relations” to “rape” or “penetrative sexual assault”, without clear evidence to justify it.
Court’s Observations
The High Court carefully examined the testimonies of the victim and her parents. It found that although the witnesses repeatedly used the expression “physical relations”, none of them described what the term meant in specific, factual terms.
There was also no medical or forensic evidence confirming penetration or sexual assault. The Court held that such ambiguity cannot meet the stringent requirements of proof in criminal cases, especially when the term itself is not defined in law.
Justice Ohri observed:
“The phrase ‘physical relations’ is not defined under the IPC or the POCSO Act. Unless the prosecution establishes the act of penetration or sexual intent as defined by statute, the term cannot automatically be equated with rape or sexual assault.”
Legal Reasoning and Analysis
1. Statutory Clarity Required
Under Section 3 of the POCSO Act, “penetrative sexual assault” requires clear proof of penetration with sexual intent. Similarly, Section 376 IPC requires proof beyond reasonable doubt of the act of sexual intercourse against the will or without consent.
The Court held that the prosecution failed to establish these essential ingredients. A general claim of “relations” cannot be treated as conclusive proof of sexual assault.
2. Role of Evidence and Testimony
The High Court emphasised that when a child witness uses vague expressions, it becomes the Court’s duty to seek clarification and ensure the testimony is complete and comprehensible.
In this case, neither the investigating officer nor the trial court questioned the child to clarify the meaning of “physical relations.” The judgment cautioned against assuming meaning from such terms without further examination.
3. Importance of Forensic Support
While medical evidence is not always mandatory for conviction, its absence heightens the need for clear, credible testimony. Here, there was no medical examination or physical evidence corroborating the allegations, further weakening the prosecution’s case.
4. Benefit of Doubt
Since criminal jurisprudence mandates proof beyond reasonable doubt, any ambiguity must be resolved in favour of the accused. The High Court noted that the trial court had “filled the gaps” in evidence through presumption rather than proof — an error in law.
Judgment and Outcome
The Delhi High Court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellant, holding that:
“A mere allegation of physical relations, without clarity on what acts were committed, cannot establish an offence of rape or penetrative sexual assault.”
The Court reiterated that vague terminology cannot replace the specific legal requirements of a sexual offence under the IPC or POCSO Act.
Key Takeaways from the Judgment
-
“Physical relations” ≠ Rape:
Courts cannot equate colloquial phrases with statutory offences unless the evidence satisfies legal definitions. -
Judicial Duty to Clarify:
When a child witness is vague, the judge must ask clarifying questions to ensure a complete and accurate record. -
Proof Beyond Doubt:
Convictions must be based on clear, specific, and corroborated evidence — not assumptions or incomplete testimony. -
Need for Forensic and Medical Evidence:
Absence of medical corroboration requires stronger testimonial clarity to sustain a charge. -
Protection of Rights:
While POCSO seeks to protect minors, the accused’s right to a fair trial and the presumption of innocence remain fundamental.
Broader Implications
This ruling reinforces the balance between protection and due process in sexual offence cases.
It ensures that while minors are shielded under POCSO, courts must still adhere to strict evidentiary standards to prevent wrongful convictions.
The judgment also serves as guidance for:
- Investigators – to record clear, detailed statements and obtain forensic support.
- Prosecutors – to establish all statutory elements through coherent evidence.
- Judges – to scrutinise vague testimony before drawing conclusions.
- Defence lawyers – to highlight ambiguities that undermine the prosecution’s burden of proof.
Conclusion
The Delhi High Court’s decision marks a crucial reaffirmation of the principle that justice cannot rest on assumption. The Court’s reasoning underscores that legal guilt must be established through clarity, consistency, and corroboration.
While the POCSO Act rightly adopts a zero-tolerance stance toward child sexual abuse, this case reminds all stakeholders that precision in language and evidence is essential to uphold both justice for victims and fairness for the accused.
-Adv Akhil JK