A credible child victim’s testimony sustains penetrative sexual assault conviction despite absence of physical injuries.

The appellant, Mohammed Rijas, was prosecuted for allegedly trespassing into the bedroom of a house on 14 September 2015 and repeatedly committing penetrative sexual assault on PW1, an 11-year-old minor girl, including on that date and during the preceding 20 days.

He allegedly threatened to kill her if she disclosed the incident.

PW1’s foster mother discovered a handwritten letter, Ext. P3, written by PW1 and warning the accused not to repeat his conduct.

The matter was thereafter reported to Childline and the police; PW1’s written complaint, Ext. P1, led to registration of the FIR on 21 September 2015.

The Fast Track Special Court, Tirur, convicted the accused under Sections 450, 376(2)(i) and 506 of the IPC and Section 6 read with Section 5(m) of the POCSO Act.

It imposed concurrent sentences of three years’ rigorous imprisonment under Section 450 IPC, two years under Section 506 IPC, and ten years under Section 6 read with Section 5(m) POCSO, along with fines and compensation directions.

The accused challenged the conviction and sentence under Section 415(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

The Court applied Sections 450, 376(2)(i) and 506 of the IPC concerning house-trespass to commit an imprisonable offence, aggravated rape of a girl below 12 years, and criminal intimidation, respectively, together with Section 6 read with Section 5(m) of the POCSO Act concerning aggravated penetrative sexual assault upon a child.

The Court treated the testimony of the child victim as capable of sustaining a conviction where it is reliable and inspires confidence, even without independent corroboration.

Relying on Rai Sandeep v. State of NCT of Delhi, AIR 2012 SC 3157, it stated that a “sterling witness” must give a consistent and trustworthy account on the core aspects of the occurrence, while minor omissions or inconsistencies in a child victim’s testimony do not necessarily discredit her evidence.

The Court further applied the principle that absence of injuries, rupture of the hymen or other medical signs does not negate penetrative sexual assault, since penetration to even the slightest degree is legally sufficient.

The appeal was considered under Section 415(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

The Court found PW1’s account of the assault, the identity of the accused, the place and manner of occurrence, and the threat administered by him to be consistent and credible.

Ext. P3, the handwritten warning found immediately after the alleged incident, was treated as contemporaneous supporting evidence indicating that the accused had subjected PW1 to improper sexual conduct and that she was distressed by it.

The subsequent disclosures to PW2, Childline officials and the police further supported the prosecution narrative.

The Court held that the earlier prosecution allegation covering a longer period did not materially undermine the case because the alleged assault on 14 September 2015 was itself sufficient to establish penetrative sexual assault; the repeated nature of the conduct was relevant to the aggravated charge.

The absence of physical injuries and the intact hymen did not create reasonable doubt because PW1 specifically testified to penile penetration, and the law does not require complete penetration or physical injury to establish the offence.

Applying the standard in Rai Sandeep, the Court concluded that PW1 was a reliable child witness whose core testimony remained intact, and that the supporting oral and documentary evidence sufficiently corroborated her account.

The sentences were considered proportionate to the gravity of the offences and were not reduced.

It held that the prosecution had proved the offences under Sections 450, 376(2)(i) and 506 of the IPC and Section 6 read with Section 5(m) of the POCSO Act, and that PW1’s credible testimony was sufficient despite the absence of medical signs of sexual assault.

The criminal appeal was dismissed, and the conviction and concurrent sentences imposed by the Special Court—including three years’ rigorous imprisonment under Section 450 IPC, two years under Section 506 IPC, and ten years under the POCSO Act—were confirmed.

The Registry was directed to forward the judgment to the Jail Superintendent and the Special Court for information and compliance.