A credible victim’s sole testimony is sufficient to sustain conviction under Section 8 POCSO.

On 11 November 2014, the appellant allegedly took the victim and another minor girl to a paddy field on the pretext of showing them a snake. He allegedly made them lie down, opened their undergarments, touched his own private parts with them, ejaculated, and chased them with a lathi when they attempted to flee.

The victim narrated the incident to her parents, following which Mango P.S. Case No. 581 of 2014 was registered on 15 November 2014 under Sections 376/511 IPC and Sections 4 and 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (“POCSO Act”). After investigation, a charge-sheet was submitted and charges were framed under the same provisions.

The victim, examined as P.W.-1, supported the prosecution case and identified the appellant. The other child, examined as P.W.-3, was declared hostile and denied that any such incident had occurred.

The trial court convicted the appellant under Section 8 of the POCSO Act and sentenced him to three years’ rigorous imprisonment, a fine of ₹5,000, and two months’ imprisonment in default of payment of fine.

Whether the testimony of the victim, standing substantially on its own and notwithstanding the hostile testimony of the co-victim, was sufficient to sustain the appellant’s conviction under Section 8 of the POCSO Act?

Whether the alleged delay in lodging the FIR, the defence claim of false implication arising from a commercial dispute, and the alleged contradiction in the Investigating Officer’s evidence created reasonable doubt regarding the prosecution case?

Whether the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court required interference in appeal?

The Court applied Section 8 of the POCSO Act, which criminalises sexual assault on a child and prescribes the applicable punishment; the conviction was based on the finding that the appellant’s conduct constituted sexual assault.

The Court also considered the evidentiary relevance of the victim’s immediate disclosure to her mother under Section 6 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, treating the mother’s evidence as relevant to the transaction and its immediate aftermath.

The Court accepted the established principle that a conviction may be founded on the credible and reliable testimony of the prosecutrix/victim without mandatory corroboration, while assessing such testimony in the context of the surrounding circumstances.

The High Court found the testimony of P.W.-1 to be reliable, consistent with the prosecution narrative, and sufficient to establish the appellant’s sexual conduct towards the child.

The victim’s account was supported by her immediate disclosure to her mother, and the surrounding circumstances—particularly the open place of occurrence—were found to be consistent with the Investigating Officer’s evidence and portions of the defence evidence.

The hostile testimony of P.W.-3 did not, in the Court’s view, discredit the direct testimony of P.W.-1.

The arguments concerning delay in lodging the FIR and false implication due to a commercial transaction were rejected because they did not outweigh the credible testimony of the victim.

The alleged statement by the Investigating Officer that the victim’s mother had admitted lodging a false case was also not accepted, as the High Court’s examination of the case diary disclosed no such statement.

The High Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 10 January 2019 passed by the Special Judge (POCSO), Jamshedpur, under Section 8 of the POCSO Act.

The appellant’s bail bond was cancelled, and the trial court was directed to take coercive steps to apprehend him and commit him to custody for serving the remaining sentence.