A credible child victim’s testimony alone can sustain a POCSO sexual-assault conviction.

Facts

The appellant was convicted by the Sessions Court under Section 354 IPC and Section 10 of the POCSO Act for allegedly kissing a six-year-old child and subjecting her to inappropriate physical contact.

Source reference: p. 19–21, paras. 11–12

He was acquitted of the charge under Section 363 IPC and sentenced to five years’ rigorous imprisonment and a fine of ₹5,000.

Source reference: p. 19–21, paras. 11–12

On appeal under Section 415(2) BNSS, he challenged the reliability of the child’s testimony, relying on inconsistencies about the contact and place of occurrence, her disavowal of her Section 164 CrPC statement, alleged tutoring, an asserted prior quarrel, and investigative omissions.

Source reference: p. 21–27, paras. 13–27

The State maintained that the child’s account was credible and that the statutory presumption applied.

Source reference: p. 28, paras. 28–30

Issues

1. Whether the child’s testimony was sufficiently credible and reliable to sustain the convictions despite the asserted inconsistencies, her disavowal of the Section 164 CrPC statement, and the allegation of tutoring.

Source reference: p. 30–38, paras. 36–47

2. Whether the alleged kissing and other physical contact, on the evidence accepted by the Court, constituted sexual assault under Section 7 and aggravated sexual assault punishable under Section 10 of the POCSO Act.

Source reference: p. 29–33, paras. 32–43

3. Whether the identified evidentiary and investigative concerns warranted setting aside the convictions and sentence on appeal.

Source reference: p. 21–28, paras. 13–30; p. 37–38, paras. 46–49

Law Applied

Section 7 of the POCSO Act covers intentional touching of specified body parts and any other act involving physical contact without penetration, where accompanied by sexual intent; Section 9(n) identifies a category of aggravated sexual assault, and Section 10 prescribes its punishment.

Source reference: p. 29–30, paras. 32–35

The Court relied on State of Madhya Pradesh v. Balveer Singh, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 390, for the principles that a competent child witness’s evidence may, if it inspires confidence, form the sole basis for conviction; corroboration is not invariably required, but careful scrutiny and consideration of possible tutoring or material contradictions are necessary.

Source reference: p. 33–37, paras. 44–46

The Court also recognised that a conviction may rest on the victim’s testimony alone where it is consistent and credible.

Source reference: p. 37, para. 45

Reasoning

The Court considered the child’s account of the appellant kissing her on the lips and making inappropriate physical contact, together with her prompt disclosure to her mother, sufficiently consistent on the material particulars.

Source reference: p. 30–33, paras. 36–42

It treated variation about the precise body part touched as non-dispositive, given the child’s age, and held that the kissing allegation could still fall within Section 7’s provision for other physical contact if sexual intent was established.

Source reference: p. 30–33, paras. 36–42

Applying Balveer Singh, the Court found that the child could understand and answer questions, and that tutoring had not been established or any material contradiction shown that rendered her testimony untrustworthy.

Source reference: p. 37–38, paras. 45–47

It further held that the appellant’s status as the child’s neighbour, and the child’s trust in him, attracted liability under Section 10.

Source reference: p. 33, para. 43

Holding

The High Court dismissed the appeal, finding no basis to interfere with the convictions under Section 354 IPC and Section 10 of the POCSO Act or the sentence of five years’ rigorous imprisonment and a ₹5,000 fine, with six months’ rigorous imprisonment in default.

Pending applications were also disposed of.

Source reference: p. 37–38, paras. 47–50