Absence of Minority Proof in POCSO Cases Does Not Negate Conviction for Gang Rape Supported by FSL Evidence.

The victim alleged that on May 13, 2023, while walking outside her house, she was induced by accused Yuvraj Sahu to sit on a motorcycle where co-accused Ravindra Bareth was also present

They took her to a secluded spot near Kanchanpur and subjected her to forcible sexual assault

The prosecution further alleged that a third accused, Vicky Sagar, was involved in enticing the victim

The Trial Court (Special Judge, FTSC, Sakti) convicted all three appellants under Sections 366 (Abduction) and 376D (Gang Rape) of the IPC, sentencing them to 20 years of rigorous imprisonment

The Appellants challenged the conviction on grounds of contradictory victim testimony, lack of medical injuries, and the hostile nature of eyewitnesses

1. Whether the prosecution conclusively established the minority of the victim to attract provisions of the POCSO Act

2. Whether the testimony of the victim, in the absence of external physical injuries and corroborated by FSL reports, is sufficient to sustain a conviction for gang rape under Section 376D IPC

The Court applied Section 366 (Abduction) and Section 376D (Gang Rape) of the IPC

the principle that the testimony of a victim of sexual assault—the "sterling witness"—can form the sole basis of conviction if it is consistent and inspires confidence, even without corroboration

Rameshwar v. State of Rajasthan regarding the prudence of corroboration

State of Punjab v. Gurmeet Singh regarding the intrinsic weight of a victim’s testimony

State of H.P. v. Shree Kant Shekar, which held that absence of physical injuries does not negate the occurrence of rape

under Section 376D, every member of a group acting with common intention is constructively liable for the act

The Court affirmed the Trial Court's finding that the victim’s minority was not proven beyond reasonable doubt due to inconsistencies in school records and parental testimony; thus, POCSO Act charges were dropped

the Court found the victim’s (PW-2) testimony regarding the assault to be detailed, consistent, and "unshaken" despite natural minor variations

While the medical officer (PW-8) found no external genital injuries, the Court prioritized the FSL report (Ex.P-32) which confirmed the presence of seminal stains and human sperm on the victim's clothing and vaginal swabs

The Court reasoned that in Indian society, a woman would not falsely implicate herself in a matter concerning her chastity without a genuine grievance

It dismissed the hostility of PW-12, stating that a "hostile" witness does not nullify the core prosecution case when scientific evidence and the victim's credible testimony align

it held that the charge of gang rape was proved beyond reasonable doubt through the victim’s reliable testimony and scientific corroboration

The High Court dismissed the appeals and affirmed the conviction and 20-year sentences under Sections 366 and 376D of the IPC

The Appellants were ordered to serve the remaining sentence