### Aggravated penetrative sexual assault of minor proven through sterling testimony of victim and corroborative medical evidence. Summary of the Judgment: 1. Facts: The appellant was convicted for rape and attempt to murder under Sections 376 and 307 of the IPC, and Sections 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act. On August 22, 2021, the minor victim was intercepted while outdoors by the appellant, who smothered her, rendered her unconscious, and subjected her to a brutal sexual assault resulting in severe internal injuries requiring multiple surgeries at IGIMS, Patna. 2. Prosecution Evidence: * Sterling Testimony: The victim’s (PW-2) testimony was found to be consistent with her Section 164 Cr.P.C. statement and fardbeyan. The Court classified her as a "sterling witness" whose evidence was of exceptionally high quality. * Medical Corroboration: Doctors (PW-3, PW-8, PW-11) confirmed a midline perineal tear and anal wall rupture, characterizing the injuries as "grievous" and life-threatening. * Age Determination: School records (PW-10) and radiological scans established the victim's age between 15-16 years, attracting POCSO provisions. 3. Defense Contentions: The appellant alleged false implication due to a monetary dispute and argued that the absence of semen on the victim's clothes weakened the case. 4. Court’s Holding: * Presumption of Guilt: Under Sections 29 and 30 of the POCSO Act, once foundational facts are proven, the court must presume the accused's guilt and *mens rea*. The appellant failed to rebut this on a preponderance of probabilities. * Absence of Semen: The Court held that the absence of spermatozoa does not negate a charge of sexual assault when ocular and medical evidence of penetration/injury is overwhelming. * Section 307 IPC: The brutality of the assault, causing life-threatening sepsis and requiring three surgeries, sufficiently proved the intent/knowledge required for a conviction of attempt to murder. * Delay in FIR: The two-day delay was deemed natural given the victim's critical medical state and social stigmas relative to family prestige. The High Court affirmed the life imprisonment sentence and the compensation of ₹7,00,000 awarded to the victim.

The Appellant was convicted by the Trial Court for raping and attempting to murder a minor girl (PW-2) on 22.08.2021.

The Appellant allegedly intercepted the victim and her younger sister (PW-6) while they were going to defecate, rendered the victim unconscious, and committed penetrative sexual assault in a nearby garden (gachhi).

The victim sustained severe internal injuries to her anal and urinary tracts, requiring three major surgeries at IGIMS, Patna.

The Trial Court sentenced the Appellant to life imprisonment under Section 6 of the POCSO Act and 10 years rigorous imprisonment under Section 307 of the IPC.

The Appellant challenged the conviction, citing a two-day delay in the FIR, inconsistencies in witness testimonies, and an alleged motive of false implication due to financial dues.

1. Whether the prosecution established the victim’s status as a "child" under the POCSO Act at the time of the occurrence.

2. Whether the testimony of the prosecutrix (PW-2) was of "sterling quality" to sustain a conviction without the need for independent corroboration.

3. Whether the nature of injuries and the circumstances of the assault justified a conviction under Section 307 of the IPC (Attempt to Murder).

The court applied Sections 376 and 307 of the IPC and Sections 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act.

It relied on the "reverse burden" of proof and mandatory presumptions under Sections 29 and 30 of the POCSO Act, which require the court to presume the guilt and mens rea of the accused once foundational facts are proven.

Regarding the reliability of a victim's testimony, the court applied the principle from Manak Chand alias Mani v. State of Haryana, which treats the prosecutrix's evidence as equivalent to an injured witness and of "sterling quality" if consistent.

For age determination, the court followed the hierarchy of evidence (school records over medical opinion) as per the POCSO framework.

The Court found the foundational facts established: the victim’s minority was proven through school admission registers (showing a DOB of 29.12.2006) and corroborated by a Medical Board.

The Court rejected the defense's argument regarding the two-day FIR delay, noting that in sexual assault cases, families often prioritize medical treatment and struggle with social stigma.

The medical evidence from IGIMS (PW-8) confirmed the "grievous" nature of the injuries, specifically a complete perineal tear and communication between the anal wall and vagina, which the Court deemed sufficient to establish an intent or knowledge that such acts could cause death under Section 307 IPC.

The testimony of the child witness (PW-6) and the prompt disclosure to the mother (PW-1) provided immediate corroboration under the res gestae principle.

The Appellant failed to rebut the statutory presumptions under Sections 29 and 30 of the POCSO Act, as his defense regarding unpaid wood dues was deemed an unproven afterthought.

The Court affirmed that the severity of the internal injuries and the resulting sepsis/surgeries justified the conviction for attempt to murder alongside aggravated penetrative sexual assault.

The High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the judgment of conviction and order of sentence of life imprisonment and the order to pay Rs. 7,00,000/- in victim compensation.