A child victim’s credible testimony alone can sustain conviction for aggravated penetrative sexual assault.

The appellant, Ravinder Singh, was prosecuted for allegedly sexually assaulting PW3, a boy aged approximately 10 years, on 20 March 2013 near Veer Bazar Road, Chander Vihar, Delhi.

The prosecution alleged that the appellant forcibly removed the child’s clothes, committed penile-anal and oral sexual acts, and threatened him.

An FIR was registered under Sections 377 and 506 IPC; the charge-sheet additionally invoked Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (“POCSO Act”).

The trial court framed charges under Section 6 of the POCSO Act and Section 506 IPC.

The prosecution examined ten witnesses, principally PW3, the victim, PW1, his uncle, and PW5, his mother.

The medical examination recorded a perianal bruise and stated that penetration could not be ruled out; the FSL report detected human semen on the victim’s anal swab, though it did not identify its source.

The appellant denied the allegations under Section 313(1)(b) Cr.P.C., asserting that the victim’s family had falsely implicated him to obtain his property.

The trial court convicted him under Section 6 of the POCSO Act and sentenced him to ten years’ rigorous imprisonment and a fine of ₹10,000, with further rigorous imprisonment in default of payment.

There was no representation for the appellant at the final hearing, and the High Court proceeded to decide the appeal on merits.

Whether the testimony of PW3, corroborated by the immediate conduct and disclosures proved by PW1 and PW5, established beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant committed penetrative sexual assault on the child.

Whether the medical and forensic evidence, including the absence of conclusive proof of penetration or identification of the semen’s source, materially contradicted the victim’s testimony so as to warrant acquittal.

Whether inconsistencies concerning the sequence of events, the place of occurrence, and recovery of the child’s clothes rendered the prosecution case unreliable.

Whether the trial proceedings were vitiated by the trial court’s failure to conduct the hearing contemplated under Section 232 Cr.P.C.

Whether the facts established aggravated penetrative sexual assault under Section 5(m), punishable under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, because the victim was below twelve years of age.

The Court applied Section 6 of the POCSO Act, which prescribes punishment for aggravated penetrative sexual assault, read with Section 5(m), covering penetrative sexual assault on a child below twelve years of age.

Penetration “however slight” is sufficient, provided the victim is a child and the act falls within an aggravated category.

The Court relied on Rai Sandeep @ Deepu v. State (NCT of Delhi), AIR 2012 SC 3157, for the principle that conviction may rest on the sole testimony of the victim where it is of sterling quality, consistent, natural, and free from material contradictions or improvements.

It relied on Dayal Singh v. State of Uttaranchal, (2012) 8 SCC 263, for the principle that medical and expert evidence under Section 45 of the Evidence Act is advisory and ordinarily serves to corroborate or contradict ocular testimony; it is not conclusive or binding on the court.

The Court also applied Bani Singh v. State of U.P., (1996) 4 SCC 720, permitting consideration of the appeal on merits despite the appellant’s non-appearance.

Regarding Section 232 Cr.P.C., the Court relied on Moidu K. v. State of Kerala, 2009 SCC OnLine Ker 2888, holding that non-compliance does not automatically vitiate proceedings unless substantial prejudice to the accused is demonstrated.

The Court found PW3’s account in his Section 164 Cr.P.C. statement and trial testimony materially consistent regarding the appellant’s identity, the forcible removal of clothes, threats and physical violence, and penile-anal and oral sexual acts.

PW3’s evidence was supported by his immediate return home without clothes in a distressed condition and his prompt disclosure to PW1 and PW5, who also testified that he identified the appellant.

The Court treated the discrepancies regarding the sequence of visits, recovery of clothes, and other peripheral details as minor variations, particularly in accounts of a traumatic incident involving a child, and held that they did not affect the core prosecution case.

The medical evidence of a perianal bruise and the FSL finding of semen on the anal swab did not conclusively establish the source of the semen, and the medical opinion stated only that penetration could not be ruled out.

Nevertheless, the Court held that this evidence did not completely contradict or exclude PW3’s direct testimony and therefore did not create a reasonable doubt.

The alleged property-related motive was also rejected because the evidence did not show that the incident itself had been fabricated; the subsequent compromise discussion could at most indicate a demand for property to withdraw the case.

The appellant demonstrated no prejudice from the omission to conduct a Section 232 Cr.P.C. hearing.

On the proved facts, the victim’s age and the sexual act brought the case within Section 5(m), punishable under Section 6 of the POCSO Act.

The conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court—ten years’ rigorous imprisonment and a fine of ₹10,000, with imprisonment in default—were upheld.

The appeal was dismissed as meritless, and any pending applications were closed.