Criminal appeals under Section 415(2) BNSS (CRL.A. 23/2025 – Navdeep @ Sonu, A2; CRL.A. 47/2025 – Krishan, A1) against judgment dated 02.08.2024 of the Additional Sessions Judge-Special, FTSC (POCSO), Rohini, convicting the appellants under Section 377 r/w Section 34 IPC and Section 6 PoCSO for repeated carnal intercourse/penetrative assault on PW1, a minor, the charged incident being 23.06.2017 at a room in Patase Wali Gali, Bawana (FIR 257/2017, PS Bawana; Sessions Case 407/2018). Held: (i) absence of hearing under Section 232 Cr.P.C. does not ipso facto vitiate the trial absent shown prejudice; (ii) medical evidence is corroborative only — multiple anal erosions and the examiner's opinion that recent anal penetration could not be ruled out substantially support PW1; normal anal tone and absence of severe injury do not by themselves negate assault; (iii) trustworthy sole testimony of the victim can sustain conviction; non-recovery of the alleged obscene video and inconsistencies in the duration of abuse do not destroy PW1's credibility; (iv) defence theories — kabaddi-quarrel revenge (DW3), alibi (DW1), Rs. 1500 loan (DW2), fabrication of medical evidence through PW2's hospital employment (DW4) — rejected; a prior quarrel cannot discard the prosecution case unless a strong motive to falsely implicate is shown; (v) FSL finding of DNA of BOTH accused on PW1's clothes contradicted PW1's version (only A2 penetrated him on 23.06.2017) and, coupled with the delayed Malkhana deposit, justified the apprehension of sample manipulation by the IO; yet defective investigation is no ground for acquittal where evidence de hors the defect proves guilt beyond reasonable doubt; (vi) A1, though allegedly outside the room awaiting his turn, is liable under the Explanation to Section 5(g) PoCSO (gang penetrative sexual assault, common intention), and ingredients of Section 377 r/w Section 34 IPC stand proved; (vii) the same act falls within Section 3(a) PoCSO, so punishment can be awarded under one enactment only (Section 71 IPC; Section 26 General Clauses Act, 1897); (viii) the 15-year RI under Section 6 PoCSO exceeded the permissible maximum of life or a term not exceeding 14 years (Ravinder Singh); considering age 19–20 years, substantive sentence reduced to 10 years' RI. Appeals partly allowed; convictions confirmed; Section 6 PoCSO sentence reduced from 15 to 10 years.
