Child’s Credible Testimony and Corroborative Medical Evidence Establish Aggravated Penetrative Sexual Assault Under POCSO Act

The Appellant was accused of kidnapping a 16-year-old boy (PW1) on the night of 04.02.2018 under the pretext of giving him a video game. The prosecution alleged the Appellant forcibly took the victim to a shop, hit him with a hammer and other tools, and committed aggravated penetrative sexual assault

The victim reached home in a semi-conscious, blood-stained state and was hospitalized

The Trial Court convicted the Appellant under Sections 363, 342, 324, 377, and 506(II) of the IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act, sentencing him to 15 years of rigorous imprisonment

The Appellant challenged the conviction based on inconsistencies in the victim's testimony and lapses in the chain of custody of forensic evidence

1. Whether there were material infirmities or contradictions in the testimony of the victim (PW1) and his father (PW3) sufficient to vitiate the conviction.

2. Whether the lack of independent witnesses and alleged breaks in the chain of custody of forensic samples (FSL) undermined the prosecution's case.

3. Whether the Trial Court's imposition of a 15-year sentence was legally sustainable under the statutory framework of Section 6 of the POCSO Act applicable at the time of the offense.

The court applied Section 162 of the Cr.PC and Section 145 of the Evidence Act, noting that previous statements to police can only be used to contradict a witness if their attention is specifically drawn to the contradictory parts during cross-examination

It relied on V. K. Mishra v. State of Uttarakhand regarding the procedure for proving contradictions

Rakesh v. State of U.P., which establishes that recovery of the weapon is not a sine qua non for conviction

The court also invoked Section 29 of the POCSO Act, which creates a statutory presumption of guilt once foundational facts of sexual assault are established

Ravinder Singh v. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi regarding the limits of a Trial Court’s sentencing powers for terms exceeding 14 years but less than life

The Court found that the defense failed to follow the mandatory procedure under Section 145 of the Evidence Act to prove contradictions between the victim’s court testimony and his prior statements; thus, those alleged inconsistencies could not be legally exploited

While acknowledges discrepancies between the road certificate and items received by the FSL, the Court held that scientific evidence is corroborative; the victim’s testimony was found credible, consistent in core allegations of sexual abuse, and supported by the MLC which noted perianal swelling and multiple blunt injuries

The Court dismissed the "repair charge dispute" defense as improbable and noted that the Appellant’s lack of remorse at the time of arrest further supported the prosecution's version

However, regarding the sentence, the Court noted that under the law prevailing in 2018, a Trial Court could sentence a defendant to 10 years or life, but if opting for a term of years, it could not exceed 14 years

The Court modified the sentence for the offense under Section 6 of the POCSO Act from 15 years to 14 years of rigorous imprisonment to align with the limits of the Trial Court's authority as clarified in Ravinder Singh. All other sentences remained concurrent. Holding: Conviction confirmed; sentence modified to 14 years